Upon the following papers read on this motion 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 X ;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 omnibus 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 instrument based upon an alleged violation of his statutory speedy trial rights is DENIED. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments for the People’s failure to provide discovery is DENIED. The defendant’s motion for an adverse inference instruction based upon the People’s failure to comply with discovery demands is DENIED. The defendant’s motion to file additional motions is GRANTED, to the extent indicated herein. On May 23, 2022, the defendant was charged under Docket # CR-015730-22SU with one count of Driving While Intoxicated in violation of New York State Vehicle & Traffic (“VTL”) Law §1192.3, an unclassified misdemeanor, and one count of Driving While Intoxicated Per Se in violation of VTL §1192.2, an unclassified misdemeanor. He was arraigned on June 20, 2022. By motion dated January 26, 2023, the defendant now moves this court for an order (1) striking the CoC/SoR as invalid; (2) dismissing the accusatory instrument based upon an alleged violation of his statutory speedy trial rights; (3) dismissing the accusatory instruments for the People’s failure to provide discovery; (4) granting an adverse inference instruction based upon the People’s failure to comply with discovery demands; and (5) allowing him to file additional motions. This Court addresses each motion, in turn, below. A. Prior Motion, Hearing, and Decision 1. Motion to Dismiss On September 6, 2022, the defendant filed an omnibus motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the discovery requirements of Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) article 245, which the People opposed on October 7, 2022. In an order dated November 18, 2022, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted the defendant’s request for Mapp/Dunaway and Huntley hearings. See People v. Sherman, CR-15730-22SU [Dist Ct, Suffolk Cnty Nov. 18, 2022] [Orlando, J.]. 2. Hearing On January 24, 2023, this Court held a combined Mapp/Dunaway and Huntley hearing, which hearing continued on January 25 and January 26, 2023. During the hearing, the defendant made an oral motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §30.30(5), on the ground that he had not received all of the impeachment material to which he was entitled. In addition, the People made an oral motion in limine to preclude cross-examination regarding disciplinary files. 3. Decision In an oral decision on preliminary motions read on the record on January 24, 2023, this Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on speedy trial grounds, noting that, in this case, the People had turned over impeachment materials containing all categories of findings (substantiated, unsubstantiated, unfounded, exonerated). (See 1/24/2023 Tr. at pp. 116-121). This Court further held that the People’s disclosures were sufficient, and the People did not have to disclose the entirety of the underlying files in the first instance. (Id. at pp. 119-120). If the defendant believed he needed the underlying files, he could make a motion for such upon a showing of necessity. (Id.). In addition, the Court held that the People had demonstrated good faith to the extent they had disclosed materials in accordance with their understanding of existing — and conflicting — caselaw in People v. Portillo, 73 Misc3d 216, 153 NYS3d 758 [Sup Ct, Suffolk Cnty July 23, 2021] and People v. Randolph, 69 Misc3d 770, 773, 132 NYS3d 726 [Sup Ct, Suffolk Cnty September 15, 2020]. (Id. at 116). In addition, this Court held that the redaction of personally-identifying information, such as tax identification numbers and social security numbers from the IAB files was permissible. (See 1/24/2023 Tr. at p. 119). However, the redaction of other information would require the People to apply for a protective order. (Id.). Finally, this Court reserved decision on the People’s motion in limine, until such time as an officer testified during hearing, “in which case the defense attorney can then determine from the materials that he has, what, if any, of those summaries he believes would be necessary for the cross examination and then why the underlying files, which are not turned over, are necessary.” (See 1/24/2023 Tr. at pp. 119-120). The defendant filed a written omnibus motion on January 26, 2023, which motion is pending. B. Pending Omnibus Motion As noted above, the defendant now moves this court for an order (1) striking the CoC/SoR as invalid; (2) dismissing the accusatory instrument based upon an alleged violation of his statutory speedy trial rights; (3) dismissing the accusatory instruments for the People’s failure to provide discovery; (4) granting an adverse inference instruction based upon the People’s failure to comply with discovery demands; and (5) allowing him to file additional motions. The parties’ arguments are addressed in turn, below. 1. Motion to Strike the CoC/SoR The defendant first moves to strike the People’s CoC/SoR, filed on July 5, 2022, as invalid because the People failed to comply with their automatic discovery obligations pursuant to CPL §245.20(1) inasmuch as they failed to disclose (a) all impeachment materials, including the underlying IAB files (rather than mere summaries) (see Def.’s Aff. at 11; Reply at 7); (b) unredacted copies of relevant records (contained in Exhibit C) (see Def.’s Aff. at
