DECISION AND ORDER Defendant is charged With Driving While Ability Impaired (VTL §1192.4), Speeding (VTL §1180(D)), Unregistered Motor Vehicle (VTL §401.1(A)), and Unlicensed Operator (VTL §509(1)).1 By motion filed March 8, 2021, defendant moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument for violating defendant’s due process rights and for exceeding the speedy trial requirements pursuant to CPL §30.30. Additionally, defendant seeks an order directing the People to comply with all discovery requirements mandated pursuant to CPL §245.20 and §245.50; deeming the People’s Certificate of Compliance, filed as invalid; and, deeming null the People’s declaration of readiness pursuant to CPL §245.50. After considering defendant’s moving papers, the People’s opposition and the defendant’s reply, and all relevant legal authority, the motion to dismiss is denied. The Court finds that eighty-two (82) chargeable days, have accrued since arraignment. Additionally, the remaining relief sought, is denied with leave to renew and the People are directed to comply with defendant’s discovery demands. Decision On October 30, 2020, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint on which the highest charge was a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum imprisonment term of one year (VTL §1192.4; See, People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d 563 [Kings Co. Criminal Ct. 2020]). Hence, the People were required to be ready for trial within “ninety days of the commencement [arraignment] of [the] [] criminal action” (CPL §30.30(a)(b)), less any excludable time (See, People v. Mashiyach, 70 Misc.3d 456 [Kings Co. Criminal Ct. 2020]). Prior to answering ready for trial, the People must have “done all that is required of them to bring the case to a point where it may be tried” (People v. England, 84 NY2d 1, 4 [1994]). To be “ready” for trial, two elements must be satisfied by the People. First, there must be a “statement of readiness by the [People] [] in open court [on the record] [] or recorded by the clerk or a written notice of readiness sent by the prosecutor to [] defense counsel [] [and the court]” (People v. Brown, 28 NY3d 392,403 [2016]). Second, “the People must in fact be ready to proceed at the time they declare readiness” (Id., quoting People v. Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337 [1985]). Once the People have filed a statement of readiness, adjournments are only charged to the People when the adjournment is exclusively their fault, and the time cannot be excluded under CPL §30.30(4} (See, People v. Brown, 28 NY3d 392 [2016]). Indeed, “[i]n the post readiness context, the People bear the burden of ensuring that the record explains the cause of adjournments sufficiently for the court to determine which party should properly be charged with any delay” (Id., quoting People v. Stirrup, 91 NY2d 434, 440 [1998]). On January 1, 2020, new discovery and speedy trial laws went into effect in New York State, that replaced CPL §240 and amended sections of CPL §30.30. Specifically, Article 245 now defines the People’s expanded discovery obligations pursuant to the Automatic Discovery set forth in CPL §245.20 and sets out a statutory time frame for its completion (CPL §245.10). The newly enacted provision of CPL §245.50 requires that once the People have “provided the discovery required by [CPL §245.20(1)] [], [the People] [] shall serve upon the defendant and file with the court a certificate of compliance.” Of note, CPL §245.50 delineates what the People must include in the certificate of compliance. Additionally, the newly enacted statute states that “the [People] shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of [] [CPL] 30.30 [] until [they have] filed a proper certificate [of compliance] pursuant to [CPL §245.50(1)]” (CPL §245.50(3)). CPL §30.30 was also amended to incorporate the new provisions of CPL §245.50, and now states that “ any statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of [CPL §245.20] []” (CPL §30.30(5)). “ The defense shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the record as to whether the disclosure requirements have been met” (Id.). Arguments The defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint arguing that because the people failed to timely file the certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL §245.50, they have not fulfilled their statutory speedy trial obligation pursuant to CPL §30.30(1), and as such have violated defendant’s constitutional rights. Additionally, the defendant seeks an order directing the People to comply with CPL §245.20 and §245.50; deeming the People’s Certificate of Compliance as invalid; and nullifying the People’s Declaration of Readiness pursuant to CPL §245.50. Defendant argues that the charges must be dismissed as the People have one hundred one (101) days charged to them since the filing of the misdemeanor complaint, and since the People were not ready for trial within ninety (90) days of filing the complaint (CPL §30.30), the complaint must be dismissed. Defendant further avers that the Certificate of Compliance filed by the People is invalid as it .fails to identify and disclose evidence as required pursuant to CPL §245.20. Specifically, defendant asserts that the People failed to properly turn over a “Booking Video”. Additionally, defendant contends that the People failed to provide complaints, police reports or further information concerning the 2010 conviction of the arresting officer, nor records concerning the arresting officer’s Federal Civil Case and any Police Department Disciplinary Records. Defendant maintains that the People have failed to turn over impeachment material related to the arresting officer in contravention of CPL §245.20(1)(k). Defendant argues that because the People have failed to oblige with the discovery requirements, the Certificate of Compliance that was filed on February 8, 2021, is invalid and hence, this Court must deem null the People’s declaration of readiness. The People oppose. The People argue that the defendant’s motion to dismiss must summarily be denied (CPL §30.30) as the People are within the 90-days, primarily arguing that the first fifteen days after arraignment are excludable from the People’s time pursuant to CPL §30.30(4) (a) (see. People v. Androvic, 69 Misc. 3dd 563, 568 [NY Co. Crim. Ct. 2020]; but see, People v. Mashiyash, 70 Misc.3d 456 [Kings Co. Criminal Ct. 2020]). The People further assert that they have provided all written discovery to defense counsel and their Certificate of Compliance should not be stricken as that is a “drastic and unjust remedy” (People Opp., pp. 10). The People submit that they are willing to turn over material that defendant deems necessary and will consent to inspection of any impeachment material related to the officers involved with the arrest. In reply, defendant further urges this Court to dismiss the complaint for the People’s failure to announce its readiness for trial within the statutory time period (CPL §30.30). The relevant chronology is set forth below. October 30, 2020 — November 12, 2020 Time Charged to the People — 13 days On October 30, 2020, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint on which the highest charge was a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum imprisonment term of one year (VTL §1192.4; See, People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d 563 [Kings Co. Criminal Ct. 2020]). The defendant was released on his own recognizance and the matter was adjourned to November 12, 2020, for a virtual discovery conference at the People’s request. November 12, 2020 — December 7, 2020 Time Charged to the People — 25 days On November 12, 2020, a discovery conference was held, prior to the discovery conference, the People turned over partial discovery. On November 12, 2020, the People requested a further adjournment for a virtual discovery conference to December 7, 2020, and the time was charged to them. December 7, 2020 — December 18, 2020 Time Charged to the People — 11 days On December 7, 2020, a virtual discovery conference was held. Prior to the December 7th virtual discovery conference the People turned over partial discovery to defense counsel. A further adjournment of virtual discovery conference was requested by the People to December 18, 2020. December 18, 2020 — January 6, 2021 Time charged to the defendant — 19 days At the December 7, 2020 conference the People requested an adjournment to December 18, 2020, and the defendant requested further time to January 6, 2021. The next conference was held on January 6, 2021. January 6, 2021 — January 19, 2021 Time Charged to the People — 13 days On January 6, 2021, a virtual discovery conference was held. At that conference, in the presence of the Court, the People offered to have the defendant plead guilty to the violation of VTL §1192.1 in full satisfaction of the docket. The offer was rejected by defense counsel. The People then requested an adjournment for a further virtual discovery conference to January 19, 2021. January 19, 2021 — February 1, 2021 Time Charged to the People — 13 days On January 19, 2021, a virtual discovery conference was held. On that date, the People requested a further adjournment to February 1, 2021. February 1, 2021 — February 8, 2021 Time Charged to the People — 7 days On February 1, 2021, a virtual discovery conference was held. On that date, the People requested a further adjournment to February 8, 2021, to file a Certificate of Compliance. On February 4, 2021 (People Ex. C) and February 5, 2021 (People Ex. D), the People turned over to defense counsel discovery that contained witness impeachment information pursuant to CPL §245.20(1) (k). February 8, 2021 On February 8, 2021, a virtual discovery conference was held. The People filed a Certificate of Compliance and announced on the record their readiness for trial. Conclusion Based on this Court’s calculation, there are eighty-two (82) days chargeable to the People from the October 30, 2020 arraignment, through the People’s filing of the Certificate of Compliance on February 8, 2021 and announcing their readiness on that date. While both parties have advanced colorable arguments related to the applicability of the new discovery statute (CPL §245.20) as it relates to the People’s statutory obligation to announce they are ready (CPL §30.30), the fact remains that the People announced their readiness prior to the statutory deadline. Thus, defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied (CPL §30.30). The remaining relief sought in defendant’s motion should be denied with leave to renew in the event the People fail to comply with the defendant’s discovery demands (CPL §245.20, §245.50). The People are directed to turn over the discovery as demanded by the defendant. The People have asserted in their opposition papers that they have performed due diligence in turning over discovery to defendant (People Opp. Pp. 11), and any information that defendant deems pertinent and requests from the People, they will turn over. Dated: April 14, 2021
