By a notice of motion dated November 12, 2024, the defendant moves for an order dismissing this matter, pursuant to CPL § 30.30; CPL § 170.30(1)(e); and CPL §245.50(1). The defendant contends that the People have failed to file a valid certificate of compliance (COC) and statement of readiness (SOR) within the applicable 90-day statutory speedy-trial limit. The People submit opposition, dated December 6, 2024.

Based upon the papers submitted by the parties and the arguments contained therein, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

The defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint on June 19, 2024, and charged with Penal Law § 121.11, Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation, and various other charges. The top charge is a Class A misdemeanor. The filing of the misdemeanor complaint commenced the running of the 90-day speedy-trial deadline, less excludable time, within which the People must be "ready for trial" pursuant to the requirements of CPL § [*2]30.30(1)(b). The speedy-trial deadline was September 17, 2024.

In support of the motion, the defendant contends that the People have an obligation to file a valid COC and SOR within 90 days of arraignment. The defendant also asserts that the speedy-trial clock did not stop because the People failed to comply with their discovery obligations under CPL § 245.20, rendering their COC and SOR invalid. He further maintains that the People failed to serve them with those instruments until October 8, 2024, 111 days after arraignment.

In opposition, the People assert that they have maintained their readiness for trial since September 17, 2024, the date that they believed that they filed their COC and SOR. The People also assert that those instruments were filed upon their exercising due diligence, and acting in good faith, to ascertain the existence of, obtain, and turn over all discoverable material. The People further state that certain requested items have already been provided, do not exist, or are not discoverable. Therefore, they maintain that they have incurred 90 chargeable days within the statutory 90-day time limit. Additionally, the People contend that the defendant's motion is untimely.

In addressing the parties' arguments, the court looks to CPL § 245.50(1), which pertains to COCs and readiness for trial. That provision states that the People "shall serve upon the defendant and file with the court a certificate of compliance". The People sought to file a COC, SOR, and a Notice of Disclosure Form (NDF) on September 17, 2024. However, there were no documents attached to their email to the defendant. Thereafter, on October 8, 2024, the defendant contacted the People by email to notify them of the missing instruments, whereupon the People served the defendant with their COC and SOR on that date. The People attempt to absolve themselves of the duty to provide proper service to the defendant by claiming that the defendant failed to alert them promptly that there were no attachments to their COC/SOR/NDF transmittal email. The People further assert that the defense acted in bad faith and employed a "lying-in-wait" strategy by not alerting them promptly. However, the People's attempt to shift their responsibility to the defendant is undercut by the court's holding in People v. Carter, 80 Misc 3d 127[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50889[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2023]. Considering facts similar to those in this matter, the Court held that, absent a finding of special circumstances, the People "shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of the CPL until it has filed a proper certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL 245.50(1)" (id. (internal citations omitted). The Court found that, although the People attributed their failure to comply with mandated obligations to possible technological errors, such errors did not amount to "special circumstances" within the meaning of CPL § 245.50(3). The Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds and reached no other issue asserted by the People (id. (internal citations omitted)).

Here, the People's assertions of technological errors mirror those set forth in Carter and do not obviate their obligation to comply with mandates regarding the filing and service of proper COCs and trial readiness documents. Nor does an excuse amounting to law office failure obviate their obligation to timely comply with CPL § 30.30 (cf. Scott v. 99th Commercial Street, Inc., et al., 87 AD2d 626 [2nd Dept 1982] [finding that excuses amounting to law office failure are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss]).

The People were not ready as the date of their September 17, 2024 filing, as they failed to actually provide the COC, SOR, and NDF to the defendant at that time. Consequently, the court finds that, as the People failed to file a COC and SOR, the speedy-trial clock did not stop. The [*3]clock continued to run until October 8, 2024. On that date, there were 111 chargeable days to the People. Given that the number of chargeable days exceed 90 days, the court finds that the People violated CPL § 30.30.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted; and

ORDERED that the case against the defendant is dismissed and sealed; and it is further,

ORDERED that any and all other requests for relief are denied as academic or without merit.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.