Upon the following papers read on these motions for omnibus relief: Notice of Motion/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and supporting papers X; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers X; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers _; Filed papers _; Other Exhibits X; Certificate(s) of Compliance X; (and after hearing counsel in support of and opposed to the motion) it is, ORDERED that this motion by the defendant is decided as follows: The defendant’s motion to strike the CoC/SoR is DENIED. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments based upon an alleged violation of her statutory speedy trial rights is DENIED. On November 6, 2021, the defendant was arrested and charged under Docket # CR-029116-21SU with one count of Driving While Intoxicated in violation of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (“VTL”) §1192.3, an unclassified misdemeanor, and Reckless Driving in violation of VTL §1212, an unclassified misdemeanor, along with seven traffic infractions.1 She was arraigned on November 7, 2021. A. Prior Motion History By motion dated March 23, 2022, the defendant moved this Court for an order (1) dismissing three informations charging traffic infractions as legally insufficient; (2) striking the CoC/SoR as invalid; and (3) dismissing all accusatory instruments based upon an alleged violation of her statutory speedy trial rights. In an order dated July 27, 2022, this Court (1) granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the three informations charging traffic infractions, (2) denied the defendant’s motion to strike the CoC/SoR, and (3) denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments based upon the alleged violation of her speedy trial rights. With respect to the defendant’s prior motion to strike the CoC/SoR, the defendant argued that where a defendant is charged in multiple accusatory instruments, and the People have certified in a single CoC/SoR as to the legal sufficiency of all accusatory instruments, and some of those accusatory instruments are later deemed facially insufficient, the entire CoC/SoR is invalid. In its prior order, this Court rejected that argument, and held that the People’s initial CoC/SoR was valid despite the fact that three accusatory instruments were legally insufficient. This Court reasoned: “It is the opinion of this Court that where the People certified as to the legal sufficiency of all accusatory instruments, and some accusatory instruments are later deemed facially insufficient, the initial CoC/SoR is nevertheless still valid as to the remaining accusatory instruments. Therefore, the fact that three accusatory instruments are deemed by this Court to be facially insufficient does not render the CoC/SoR filed on December 14, 2021 invalid with respect to the remaining charges. See, e.g., People v. Ward, 73 Misc3d 1221(A), 155 NYS3d 287 [City Ct, City of Poughkeepsie 2021] [CoC/SoR containing facially insufficient traffic infractions was not invalid on ground that it included such infractions, where defendant was also charged with other offenses; nevertheless, the People were required to file supplemental CoC/SoR after Court dismissed facially insufficient traffic infractions, and initial CoC/SoR was rendered illusory when People failed to do so]. Accord, People v. Ausby, 46 Misc3d 126(A), 7 NYS3d 244 [App Term 1st Dep't 2014] [statement of readiness as to converted charge effectively stopped speedy trial clock as to that charge, even where the accusatory instrument contained a subsequently dismissed charge]. Thus, the defendant’s motion to strike the December 14, 2021 CoC/SoR is denied. 7/27/22 Order at p. 5. Since this Court determined that the initial CoC/SoR was valid as to the counts deemed legally sufficient, the Court determined that the People had not exceeded their statutory speedy trial time. Accordingly, this Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on an alleged speedy trial violation. B. Instant Motion On October 14, 2022, the defendant filed a second motion to (1) strike the CoC/SoR as invalid and (2) dismiss based upon an alleged violation of the defendant’s speedy trial rights. (See generally Def.’s Aff. (10/14/2022)). This Court addresses both motions, below. 1. Motion to Strike the CoC/SoR The defendant argues that the People’s initial CoC/SoR is invalid because the People were required, and failed, to file a Supplemental CoC/SoR following this Court’s July 27, 2022 Order dismissing three of the accusatory instruments. (See Def.’s Aff (10/14/2022) at
