DECISION AND ORDER On May 16, 2018 defendant Philip Quandt was charged with criminal mischief in the second degree, a class D felony (Penal Law §145.10); menacing in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor (Penal Law §120.14); and reckless endangerment in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor (Penal Law §120.20). On October 17, 2018, the People’s CPL 180.40/180.50 motion to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor was granted and the People announced trial readiness in open court. By decision and order dated February 25, 2019, defendant’s initial CPL 30.30 motion was denied by Colonie Town Court (see People v. Philip Quandt, Docket No. CR-00057-21[Sommers, J., Feb. 25, 2019 omnibus decision and order]) upon finding that the People timely declared trial readiness on day 153 of the applicable 184 days (see CPL 30.30 [5][c]).1 Now, defendant moves for an order invalidating the People’s January 7, 2020 Certificate of Compliance and concomitant statement of trial readiness alleging that: (1) the People failed to comply with their CPL 245.20 (1)(c) automatic discovery obligation relating to witness lists; and (2) the absence of a CPL 245.50 (3)/30.30 (5) judicial inquiry precludes a valid statement of readiness. Consequently, defendant further moves, pursuant to CPL 30.30, to dismiss all charges arguing that the People have failed to validly declare trial readiness within the applicable time frame set forth in CPL 30.30 — here 6 months or 184 days (minus excludable time) from the day after defendant’s arraignment on March 16, 2018 (People v. Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]).2 The People oppose defendant’s motion and defendant has filed a reply. 2020 Statements of Trial Readiness Effective January 1, 2020, the Legislature significantly broadened the People’s discovery obligations in enacting CPL Article 245 and repealing former CPL Article 240 (see People v. Ozzie Williams, 2021 Slip Op 50743(U), 2021 WL 3356381 [Rosenthal, J., NYC Crim Ct, July 30, 2021]). Chief among the legislative changes is that now, “the People cannot be ready for trial unless they have first served on defendant and filed with the court a certificate of compliance certifying that they have complied with their discovery obligations pursuant to CPL 245.20″ (People v. Quinlan, 71 Misc3d 266, 268-69 [NY Crim Ct 2021]; see CPL 245.50 [3]; CPL 30.30 [5]). Once the People declare trial readiness, the law requires the court to “make inquiry on the record as to their actual readiness” and “‘[t]he prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30…until it has filed a proper certificate pursuant to subdivision one of this section’” (People v. Quinlan, supra at 268-69, quoting CPL 245.50 [3]). As a “‘proper’ certificate of compliance — that is, one filed in good faith asserting that the prosecution has exercised the necessary due diligence in complying with their obligations — is now a prerequisite before the People may legally be deemed ready for trial, previous case law holding that discovery failures do not impact the People’s readiness have now been abrogated by statute and are no longer controlling.” (People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc3d 563, 575 [NY Crim Ct, Kitsis, J., Sept 3, 2020]). Accordingly, if upon inquiry the court determines that the People have not complied with their automatic discovery obligations and are not ready for trial, the People’s “statement or notice of readiness shall not be valid for [speedy-trial purposes]” (CPL 30.30 [5]).3 Moreover, “Article 245 contains an express ‘presumption of openness,’ favoring disclosure when interpreting the discovery provisions” (People v. Soto, No. CR-007995-21NY, 2021 WL 3355998, at *1 [NY Crim Ct. Rosenthal, July 30, 2021]), citing 245.20 [7] and William C. Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, CPL §245.10 ["the prosecutor's obligations to provide discovery under the current statutes are so broad as to virtually constitute 'open file' discovery, or at least make 'open file' discovery the far better course of action to assure compliance. Thus, a prosecutor who fails to engage in 'open file' discovery (except for 'work product' and information subject to a protective mandate of a statute or court order) may do so at his or her professional peril while also jeopardizing the viability of a prosecution"]). To establish a violation under CPL 30.30, defendant has the initial burden of demonstrating the existence of a delay in excess of the statutory time period (see People v. Brown, 28 NY3d 392 [2016]; People v. Santos, 68 NY2d 859, 861 [1986]). Upon meeting the initial burden, the burden then shifts to the People to establish that certain periods within that time period should be excluded (see People v. Brown, supra; People v. Fields. 214 AD2d 332 [1st Dept 1995]). The People also have the burden of clarifying the basis for an adjournment on the record, so that the motion court can determine to whom an adjournment should be charged (see People v. Cortes, 80 NY2d 201, 215 [1992]; People v. Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333 [1980]). As previously noted, the parties concede that when the People first claimed trial readiness in open court on October 17, 2018 — 153 of the 184 applicable days had accrued (May 17, 2018 — October 17, 2018). The legislative changes effective January 1, 2020 did not invalidate the People’s October 17, 2018 statement of readiness as “[l]egislative amendments that take effect during the pendency of a case apply to subsequent proceedings [], but do not serve to invalidate prior proceedings” (People v. Nge, 67 Misc3d 650, 654 [NY Crim Ct 2020, Kitsis, J., Apr 14, 2020] [internal citations omitted]). Instead, “on January 1, 2020, the People reverted to a state of unreadiness and could not be deemed ready until filing the proper certificate of compliance required by CPL 245.50″ (id.). Thus, as of January 1, 2020, for purposes of CPL 30.30, the People had 31 days (184-153 = 31 days) to comply with their automatic discovery obligations (see CPL 245.20) and validly declare trial readiness. January 1, 2020 — January 7, 2020 (7 days chargeable) Defendant argues that the People’s declaration of readiness as contained in their January 7, 2020 Certificate of Compliance is illusory because the People failed to provide a witness list and associated contact information and instead, responded to CPL 245.10 (1) (c) by indicating “[a]ll persons named in discovery are potential witnesses” (Ppl’s Aff in Opp at 20). Defendant having met his initial burden, the burden shifts to the People to show that specific periods of delay should be excluded from the CPL 30.30 calculation (see People v. Brown, supra; People v. Fields, 214 AD2d 332 [1st Dept 1995]; People v. Ramirez-Correa, supra at 572 [and citations within]). Said differently, “the People must controvert the factual basis for the motion” (People v. Ramirez-Correa, supra, citing CPL 170.45; CPL 210.45 [4]; see People v. Lomax, 50 NY2d 351, 357 [1980]). Here, the People argue that they do not have to provide a witness list because CPL 245.20 (1) (c) does not specifically say they have to (Ppl’s Aff in Opp at
