DECISION & ORDER Defendant moves, inter alia, for dismissal of the misdemeanor charges on statutory speedy trial grounds pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) §§30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e). Specifically, defendant asserts that the People served their certificate of compliance (“COC”) after the expiration of their speedy trial time. The People oppose the motion. Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the court finds that the People’s service of their COC on January 23, 2023, was effective and within the time prescribed by CPL §30.30. Accordingly, the People’s prosecution was not untimely, and defendant’s motion is denied. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 26, 2022, defendant Jahfari Miller was arrested and charged with three counts of Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law (“VTL”) §1192 (1) (driving while impaired), §1192 (2) (driving while intoxicated; per se) and §1192 (3) (driving while intoxicated). On November 27, 2022, defendant was arraigned and released on his own recognizance. On November 30, 2022, a “hardship hearing” was held to determine whether defendant would be issued a conditional driver’s license pending prosecution; defendant was denied. On January 12, 2023, the parties appeared before Hon. Giyang An and the People stated that they had not filed their COC yet, and the matter was rescheduled to February 27, 2023. On January 23, 2023, the People filed their COC and SOR with the court via EDDS and sent an email to defense counsel at “[email protected],” which purportedly attached their COC, Statement of Readiness (“SOR”) and a report concerning defendant’s chemical test analysis (“CTA”); the prosecution also contemporaneously emailed the CTA to “[email protected]” and to a general email box for The Bronx Defenders, “[email protected].” At the February 27, 2023 court appearance, the People represented to Hon. Carmen Pacheco that they had filed an off-calendar COC and SOR. However, defense counsel stated that although she had the People’s disclosure, she was not in receipt of their COC and SOR. The People confirmed that the documents had been emailed, and they served defense counsel with a copy of the COC, SOR and the CTA in court. Judge Pacheco noted that the COC had been filed via EDDS and she deemed it to be valid, subject to information that the January 23, 2023 email to defense counsel had bounced back, and the docket was adjourned. Before the next appearance, the People emailed another copy of their COC and SOR to defense counsel on March 1, 2023. At the April 10, 2023 appearance, defense counsel reiterated that she never received the emailed COC and SOR on January 23, 2023. The prosecution advised that after investigating the matter, they discovered that the January 23, 2023 email was sent to an incorrect address. However, the People restated their belief that the email had been delivered because there was no bounce back. This court inquired whether defendant had any objection to the propriety of the COC based upon the People’s disclosure. Defense counsel advised the court that she had no objection to the COC but would reserve the right to supplement the instant motion to dismiss, filed April 7, 2023, concerning any disputed disclosure issues. The COC was again deemed valid. Defense counsel’s motion to dismiss is entirely premised on the claim that from January 23, 2023, when the COC and SOR were sent to an incorrect email, to March 1, 2023, when the documents were served to her correct email, is not excludable and, thus, the People are properly charged with 94 days. The People oppose the motion and further aver that notwithstanding what they view as a typographical error in defense counsel’s email, they evinced a good faith effort to serve their COC and SOR on January 23, 2023, as demonstrated by their contemporaneous filing of the same with the court through EDDS and by service of defendant’s CTA to defense counsel’s correct email. Parenthetically, the People assert that defense counsel was personally served with a copy of their COC and SOR on February 27, 2023, two days earlier than defendant acknowledges, and that pursuant to CPL §30.30 (4) (a), the three days from defendant’s arraignment until his hardship hearing, is properly excludable if the court construes the hardship hearing as an “other proceeding.” Defendant filed a Reply reiterating his arguments but asserting no objections to the propriety of the People’s COC. DISCUSSION I. The Parties’ Arguments Defendant asserts that the People failed to properly serve their COC, and that their belated compliance failed to stop their speedy trial time. Defense counsel further avers that although the People claimed to have sent their COC and SOR in an email to “[email protected],” they knew or should have known that her correct email is “[email protected].” (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 8-9). Defendant contends that this is purely a matter of ineffective service and the People’s good faith does not warrant a finding that the time from January 23, 2023 through March 1, 2023, is excludable based upon, apparently, office failure. (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 9). Defendant cites to several cases for the proposition that in the absence of a valid COC, pursuant to CPL §§245.50 (1) and 245.50 (3), which mandate that the People serve upon defendant a COC, without which they cannot declare their readiness for trial, the prosecution cannot stop their 30.30 speedy trial time from accruing. (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 10). Additionally, defendant argues that the People have failed to provide any authority for their contention that time allotted to a determination of defendant’s hardship hearing should be excludable. (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 8-9). The People concede that their COC and SOR were not sent to defense counsel’s correct email on January 23, 2023, but counter that their intention should be inferred from their contemporaneous filing with the court, and by their filing of defendant’s CTA report to counsel’s correct email on the same date. (affirmation in support of the People’s opposition at
