I n 2019, New York State Senate Bill S1509 (hereafter “the Budget Bill”) fundamentally altered criminal procedure in the State of New York. Some changes, such as bail reform and expanded discovery requirements, were obvious. They drew immediate attention and have prompted extensive litigation that shaped their implementation. Other changes were more subtle, and their implementation has been ponderous and unnoticed. The Court must now decide an issue raised by one of these subtle changes: whether the Court’s determination of the People’s readiness, pursuant to CPL §30.30(5), is subject to subsequent re-evaluation. Prior to the Budget Bill, court evaluation of a statement of trial readiness by the People occurred in the context of a motion to dismiss for denial of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial (see CPL §210.20[1][g]). At the time they were made, the People’s statements of readiness were “presumed to be accurate and truthful” (People v. Acosta, 249 AD2d 161, 161 [1st Dept 1998]). Defendants seeking dismissal on speedy trial grounds bore the burden of demonstrating the People were not ready, and the statement was illusory (People v. Brown, 28 NY3d 392, 405 [2016]). If the Court found that the People stated ready when they were not, the remedy would be to invalidate the statement of readiness and count the subsequent time periods against the People. This process led to protracted litigation that often ended in eleventh-hour dismissal motions requiring courts to rule on circumstances that could be months or even years in the past. Since the Budget Bill went into effect on January 1, 2020, court evaluation of a statement of trial readiness by the People occurs at or near the time the statement is made. “Whenever…a prosecutor states or otherwise provides notice that the People are ready for trial, the court shall make inquiry on the record as to their actual readiness” (CPL §30.30[5]). If the statement of readiness occurs on the record, the inquiry occurs immediately; if the statement is by notice, the inquiry would occur at the appearance thereafter (William C. Donnino, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, CPL §30.30). The Budget Bill also made discovery compliance a pre-requisite to a valid statement of readiness (CPL §30.30[5] ["Any statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of section 245.20."]). The readiness inquiry therefore includes an opportunity for the defendant to move to challenge the People’s discovery compliance (id. ["[T]he defense shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the record as to whether the disclosure requirements [of CPL §245.20] have been met.”]; CPL §245.50[4][a] ["Challenges to, or questions related to a certificate of compliance shall be addressed by motion."]). Once the Court has determined the propriety of the certificate of compliance, it can then determine the validity of the People’s statement of readiness (CPL §245.50[3] ["[T]he prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate.”]).1 This shift promoted the stated goals of the Budget Bill. Although the Budget Bill lacks any legislative history, the goals identified in the floor debates on the bill are: “free exchange of information” (NY Assembly Debate on Assembly Bill A2009-C, Mar. 31, 2019 at 341), “open discovery” (id. at 448), and a “speedy trial” (id. at 469, 475, 481). The Budget Bill eliminates the need for eleventh-hour motions to dismiss due to illusory statements of readiness (see NY Senate Debate on Senate Bill S1509-C, Mar. 31, 2019 at 2613 ["This is an area…where we could actually squeeze some time out of the process."]).2 The law now requires the court to contemporaneously determine the issues of discovery compliance and readiness, rather than letting a case drag on and on, only to fall prey to violations that could have been resolved much earlier. The defendant, Jian Lin, had been arraigned on the indictment on January 5, 2022. Later that day at 4:26 p.m., after the case had already been called, the People filed a statement of readiness, a certificate of compliance, an “Automatic Discovery Form,” and an “Addendum to Automatic Discovery Form and CPL §710.30 Notice.” No readiness inquiry was conducted at that time because the statement of readiness was filed off-calendar. The matter was next before the Court on March 15, 2022. On March 15, 2022, the Court began its readiness inquiry by asking the People to confirm they had filed a certificate of compliance and a statement of readiness on January 5. The prosecutor replied, “I don’t have that information.” Defense counsel seized the opportunity to be heard, alleging that medical records were missing. The prosecutor affirmed he would “make a note for the assigned.” The Court reviewed the People’s certificate of compliance and found that it lacked a list of disclosed materials (CPL §245.50[1] [certificate of compliance "shall also identify the items provided"]). At no point in the proceeding did the prosecutor challenge the defendant’s discovery complaint about his lack of medical records, address the Court’s concerns regarding the list of disclosed materials, or request a second call to gather more information from the assigned assistant district attorney. Based upon the defendant’s uncontested allegations and the apparently incomplete certificate of compliance, the Court determined the People’s statement of readiness was not valid. The People now move to reargue that determination. The People’s motion misunderstands the issue as one of discovery sanctions. They argue that because the discovery in question had been turned over to the defense prior to the Court’s readiness inquiry on March 15, there should be no discovery sanctions pursuant to CPL §245.80. But the Court’s determination that the People’s statement of readiness was illusory was not a discovery sanction. Rather, it was a statutorily mandated readiness determination pursuant to CPL §30.30(5). It does not matter that the People can now demonstrate that they actually were ready — the statutory time for such a demonstration has passed. Once the People have certified their compliance with discovery, and stated ready, the Court must conduct a readiness inquiry. The Court did so. The People were prepared neither to answer the Court’s questions regarding their readiness, nor to meet challenges to their discovery. The People did not request additional time to do so. The Court had no option but to deem their statement of readiness illusory. Barring a demonstration of bad faith, that ruling stands. To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the Budget Bill — to promote discovery and speedy trial. Subjecting a CPL §30.30(5) determination to collateral attack, whether by the People’s motion to reargue or a defendant’s subsequent speedy trial motion, undermines those goals by prolonging the resolution of discovery and readiness issues. It would encourage defendants to ignore deficiencies in discovery and delay disposition of the case in anticipation of a later challenge after the statutory speedy trial time has elapsed. This cannot have been the intended result of the Budget Bill, which explicitly sought to promote open discovery and speedy trial (see People v. Santi, 3 NY3d 234, 244 [2004] ["[W]e must interpret a statute so as to avoid an unreasonable or absurd application of the law.”]). The People’s motion to reargue is therefore denied. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: August 8, 2022
