DECISION & ORDER Defendant moves, inter alia, for dismissal of the misdemeanor charges on statutory speedy trial grounds pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) §§245.50 (3) and 30.30 (5). Specifically, defendant seeks orders deeming the People’s certificate of compliance (“COC”) invalid and finding the prosecution not ready for trial because certain discovery items, including Giglio materials for non-testifying witnesses, remain outstanding. In the alternative, defendant seeks an order suppressing his statements to law enforcement personnel, precluding introduction of evidence at trial relating to his refusal to submit to a chemical breath analysis test and prior bad acts or convictions, or granting his request for Refusal/VTL §1194/Ingle, Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway and Sandoval/Ventimiglia pre-trial hearings. The People oppose the motion. Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: 1. The People’s COC filed December 27, 2022 is deemed VALID; 2. Dismissal pursuant to CPL §30.30 is DENIED; 3. The People are DIRECTED to produce Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) Giglio materials for Detective Darryl Schwartz (“Det. Schwartz”), Police Officer Raymond Diaz (“Officer Diaz”) and Sergeant Vasyl Filchukov (“Sgt. Filchukov”) subject to their filing a motion pursuant to CPL §245.70 for a protective order; 4. The People are DIRECTED to produce Civilian Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”) materials for Det. Schwartz, Officer Diaz and Sgt. Filchukov which are in the People’s actual possession or control; 5. The People are DIRECTED to produce underlying documentation concerning CCRB materials for Officer Robert Kosich (“Officer Kosich”) which are in the People’s actual possession or control; and 6. Pre-trial hearings are ORDERED as provided herein. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 10, 2022, defendant Juan Peralta was arrested and charged with two violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (“VTL”), §1192 (3) (driving while intoxicated) and §1192 (1) (driving while impaired). On October 10, 2022, defendant was arraigned and released on his own recognizance. The People filed their COC and statement of readiness (“SOR”) on December 27, 2022, which represented, in relevant part, that the prosecution had produced Activity Logs for Sgt. Filchukov, Officer Kosich, Det. Schwartz, Police Officer Emmanuel Mota (“Officer Mota”), Officer Yaw Asare, Officer Jason Batista (“Officer Batista”) and Officer Diaz, body worn camera (“BWC”) footage for all law enforcement personnel except Det. Schwartz, Giglio materials for Officers Mota, Batista and Kosich and two Intoxilyzer 9000 permits for Officer Kosich. Additionally, the People identified testifying law enforcement witnesses as Officers Mota, Batista and Kosich. At a conference held on January 25, 2023, before the Hon. Giyang An, the parties were directed to submit a joint letter concerning disputed discovery items. In their joint letter, defendant asserted that the People had not fulfilled their obligations under CPL §245.20 (1) concerning Det. Schwartz, in particular, because no Giglio, BWC or calibration reports related to his purportedly personal preliminary breath test (“PBT”) device were disclosed. Defendant also identified as missing FDNY/EMS records, and any statements attributed Det. Schwartz, pursuant to §245.20 (e). The People responded that they had acted in good faith to obtain BWC footage and calibration records, for the statutorily relevant time frame, to no avail. The prosecution argues that they were under no obligation to provide Giglio records for police officers whom they do not intend to call at trial. On March 16, 2023, defendant filed the instant motion. The People filed their opposition on April 6, 2023. On April 28, 2023, defendant filed a reply to the People’s opposition to reiterate his objection to the COC based on discovery deficiencies. DISCUSSION I. Applicable Standard for COC Challenge Where the People have fulfilled their statutory discovery obligations, they must file a SOR for trial, accompanied or preceded by a COC. (see People v. Marin, 74 Misc 3d 1037, 163 NYS 3d 774 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022] citing People v. England, 84 NY 2d 1, 4, 613 NYS 2d 854, [1994]; see also CPL §245.50). If the defense alleges that the People’s COC is invalid because they have failed to discharge their discovery obligations, the People must demonstrate their efforts to comply with CPL §245.20 (1). (see e.g., People v. Higgins, 2022 NY Misc LEXIS 3313, *6 [City Ct, Yonkers 2022] citing People v. Perez, 40 Misc 3d 448, 965 NYS 2d 702 [Crim Ct, Queens County 2013] ["(w)here the People fail to set forth their efforts to locate items of discovery or determine that they do not exist, or the efforts they describe do not amount to due diligence, their certificate may be invalidated"]) but see, People v. Rodriguez, 73 Misc 3d 411, 419, 152 NYS 3d 879, 882 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2021] ["the People's communications with defense counsel, which they have attached to their opposition papers, demonstrate that they have endeavored with great diligence to ensure that counsel received all documents to which the defendant is entitled"]). Criminal Procedure Law §30.30 (5) provides, in pertinent part, that: [t]he court shall make inquiry on the record as to their actual readiness. If, after conducting its inquiry, the court determines that the people are not ready to proceed to trial, the prosecutor’s statement or notice of readiness shall not be valid for purposes of this section. Accordingly, the court must determine whether the People exercised due diligence to disclose, or cause to be made available for discovery, evidence, whether their COC was filed in good faith, and whether the COC was reasonably filed under the circumstances. (see People v. McGee, 2023 NY Misc LEXIS 1954, *8 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2023] citing CPL §245.50 (1); People v. Erby, 68 Misc 3d 625, 128 NYS 3d 418 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2020], see also CPL §245.20 [2]). II. The Parties’ Arguments Defendant asserts that as of the filing of his motion, the following items remain outstanding: 1) records pertaining to substantiated and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against Det. Schwartz; 2) information relating to lawsuits filed against Det. Schwartz in his official capacity; 3) substantiated and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against Officer Diaz and Sgt. Filchukov; 4) calibration records for Det. Schwartz’s PBT device six months prior to or six months following defendant’s arrest; and 5) records generated by FDNY and EMS. (Def. Aff. at 8-9). Defendant contends that although the prosecution has determined that it will not call Det. Schwartz, Officer Diaz and Sgt. Filchukov as witnesses, each played an integral role in his interrogation and arrest. (Def. Aff. at 15-16, 25). Defendant references BWC footage which purportedly demonstrates that Det. Schwartz was called to the scene because he was known to have his own PBT device, administered a PBT test, and participated in the search of defendant’s vehicle. (Def. Aff. at 15-16). Additionally, defendant alleges that Officer Diaz acted as his translator during the interrogation by Det. Schwartz, which was observed by Sgt. Filchukov, who purportedly supervised the arrest. (Def. Aff. at 25). Defendant claims that FDNY and EMS called NYPD to the scene and that although FDNY Lieutenant Charles Vitale (“Lt. Vitale”) is listed as a testifying witness, defendant has not received any statements made by him in contravention of CPL §245.20 (e). (Def. Aff. at 25). Moreover, defendant complains that underlying documents associated with CCRB allegations against testifying witness, Officer Kosich, were impermissibly withheld and that he was instead provided with the prosecution’s summary of four CCRB charges and two CCRB cases. (Def. Aff. at 27). Lastly, defendant states that the People have not disclosed calibration reports concerning Det. Schwartz’s personal PBT device, shown in BWC footage, and that defendant’s refusal of this test precipitated his arrest. (Def. Aff. at 28). As an initial matter, the People oppose defendant’s motions to suppress evidence of defendant’s 1) refusal of a breathalyzer test; 2) statements pursuant to Huntley/Dunaway; and 3) convictions or prior bad acts pursuant to Sandoval/Ventimiglia. The prosecution further contends that there was probable cause for the car stop and arrest based upon a policer officer’s observations that a traffic violation may have occurred, and that proper statement notice was served at defendant’s arraignment.1 (People’s Aff. at
1-3). Specifically, the People assert that their COC is valid because they have complied with their discovery obligations, having exercised due diligence to marshal and produce discovery which is within their control as required by CPL §245.20 (1). (People’s Aff. at
