Papers Submitted: Notice Motion 1 Affirmation in Support 2 Affirmation in Opposition 3 Memorandum of Law 4 Reply Affirmation 5 DECISION and ORDER The Defendant is charged with driving while ability impaired, driving while intoxicated per se, driving while intoxicated and aggravated driving while intoxicated, in violation of VTL §§1192(1), 1192(2), 1192(3) and 1192(2a). CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE On March 1, 2023, the People filed their COC and a Certificate of Readiness (“COR”). On March 19, 2023, after reviewing the discovery provided by the People, counsel for the Defendant notified the People, by email, of at least ten items she believed the People failed to provide, pursuant to CPL §245.20(1). The People initially responded to counsel’s email by addressing only three of those items, indicating they are still looking into the other missing items. The Defendant now brings this motion, alleging that numerous items of discovery to which she is entitled were either never provided or were provided after the People filed their COC. So that we do not lose the forest for the trees, before addressing the specific allegations in this case, it seems worthwhile to review the applicable provisions of CPL Article 245, their inter-relationship and recent appellate authority addressing a few significant discovery issues which have arisen over the last three and one-half years. It is not an exaggeration to say that Article 245 has drastically changed the discovery procedure as it existed in the State of New York prior to January 1, 2020 under the now repealed CPL Article 240. Since January 1, 2020, a defendant no longer needs to demand discovery. CPL Article 245 places the affirmative obligation on the People to comply with their automatic discovery obligations, as set forth in CPL §§245.10 and 245.20(1)(a-u). See; People v. Villamar, 69 Misc.3d 842, 132 N.Y.S.3d 593, (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2020); People v. DeMilio, 66 Misc.3d 759, 117 N.Y.S.3d 830 (County Ct. Dutchess Co. 2020); People v. Lobato, 66 Misc.3d 1230(A), 122 N.Y.S.3d 492 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2020) It has also been recognized that “the prosecution’s obligation to provide discovery under the current statute is so broad as to virtually constitute ‘open file’ discovery, or at least make open file discovery the far better course of action to assure compliance.” [William C. Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 245.10] See also: People v. Trotman, 77 Misc.3d 1210(A), 178 N.Y.S.3d 426 (Crim. Ct. Queens Co. 2022); People v. Sozoranga-Palacios, 73 Misc.3d 1214(A), 154 N.Y.S.3d 747 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2021) At the same time, it is clear that Article 245, “should not be construed as an inescapable trap for the diligent prosecutor who professionally, assiduously and in good faith attempts to comply with their new and extensive requirements under the discovery statute, but through no fault of his or her own, is unable to comply with every aspect of the automatic discovery rules specified in CPL §245.20.” People v. Erby, 68 Misc.3d 625, 128 N.Y.S.3d 625, 633, 128 N.Y.S.3d 418 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2020); See also: People v. Vargas, 78 Misc.3d 1235(A), 187 N.Y.S.3d 584 (Crim. Ct. Bronx Co. 2023); People v. Knight, 69 Misc.3d 546, 130 N.Y.S.3d 919 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2020) Indeed, paraphrasing the court in People v. Rodriguez, 73 Misc.3d 411, 152 N.Y.S.3d 879, 884 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 2021), “good faith, due diligence, and reasonableness under the circumstances are the touchstones by which [the People's compliance with their discovery obligations] must be evaluated.” This is clear from the discovery regimen established by the inter-related sections of Article 245. CPL §245.20(1) provides a non-exhaustive list of the items the People must disclose and mandates that “the prosecution shall disclose to the defendant, and permit the defendant to discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution’s direction or control….” This list is not to be interpreted narrowly. CPL §245.20(7) mandates, “There shall be a presumption in favor of disclosure when interpreting sections 245.10 and 245.25, and subdivision one of section 245.20, of this article.” See: People v. Porter, 71 Misc.3d 187, 142 N.Y.S.3d 703 (Crim. Ct. Bronx Co. 2020); People v. Georgiopolos, 71 Misc.3d 1215(A), 144 N.Y.S.3d 344 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 2021) CPL §245.20(2) obligates the prosecution to “make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable under subdivision one of this section and to cause such material or information to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the prosecutor’s possession, custody or control.” Additionally, this section unambiguously makes clear that “all items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution.” In furtherance thereof, CPL §245.55(1) mandates: The district attorney and the assistant responsible for the case,…shall endeavor to ensure that a flow of information is maintained between the police and other investigative personnel and his or her office sufficient to place within his or her possession or control all material and information pertinent to the defendant and the offense or offenses charged, including, but not limited to, any evidence or information discoverable under paragraph (k) of subdivision one of section 245.20 of this article. CPL §245.55(2) further requires, “…upon request by the prosecution, each New York state and local law enforcement agency shall make available to the prosecution a complete copy of its complete records and files related to the investigation of the case or the prosecution of the defendant for compliance with this article.” Clearly, based upon the foregoing statutory provisions, the People cannot avoid their discovery obligations by claiming that items or information in the possession of applicable law enforcement agencies are not in their actual possession. See: People v. Amir, 76 Misc.3d 1209(A), 173 N.Y.S.3d 917 (Crim. Ct. Bronx Co. 2022) “[T]he People are forewarned that withholding of same by law enforcement agencies cannot excuse the People of their discovery obligation.” People v. Perez, 71 Misc.3d 1214(A), 144 N.Y.S.3d 332 (Crim. Ct. Bronx Co. 2021); See also: People v. Jackson, 187 N.Y.S.3d 915, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23124 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2023); People v. Edwards, 77 Misc.3d 740, 178 N.Y.S.3d 694 (Crim. Ct. Bronx Co. 2022) Pursuant to CPL §245.50(1), once the prosecution has provided a defendant with all discovery mandated by CPL §245.20, except for items which have been lost or destroyed or are the subject of an order of protection, the prosecution shall file and serve upon the defendant a certificate of compliance. “The certificate of compliance shall state that, after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery.” The filing of a certificate of compliance is a pre-requisite to the People filing a certificate of readiness. See: CPL §30.30(5); CPL §245.50(3); People v. Brown, 214 A.D.3d 823, 184 N.Y.S.3d 838 (2nd Dept. 2023); People v. King, __ A.D.3d __, 188 N.Y.S.3d 312, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 02409 (4th Dept. 2023) Critically, as CPL §245.50(3) makes clear, the People will not be deemed ready for trial until they have filed a “proper certificate.” As noted in People v. Georgiopolos, 71 Misc.3d 1215(A), 144 N.Y.S.3d 344 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 2021): Given that the statute specifies that ‘[n]o adverse consequences’ shall adhere to the People based on the filing of a certificate that is filed ‘in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances,’ (CPL §245.50[1]), the most reasonable inference is that such a certificate is ‘proper’ within the meaning of CPL §245.50[3] and, thus, fulfills that section’s prerequisite to any valid statement of readiness by the People. See also: People v. Pierna, 74 Misc.3d 1072, 163 N.Y.S.3d 897 (Crim Ct. Bronx Co. 2022) With this in mind, this court has previously held, in People v. Pennant, 73 Misc.3d 753, 763, 156 N.Y.S.3d 690, 698 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co. 2021 “that a ‘proper’ COC is one which is filed in good faith, reasonable under the circumstance, after the exercise of due diligence and reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence material and information subject to discovery.” After a certificate of compliance has been filed, CPL §245.60 calls for the prosecutor to expeditiously produce “additional material or information which it would have been under a duty to disclose pursuant to any provisions of this article had it known of it at the time of a previous discovery obligation or discovery order,” as well as additional “material or information that became relevant to the case or discoverable based on reciprocal discovery received from the defendant pursuant to subdivision four of section 245.20 of this article.” When this occurs, CPL §245.50(1) requires the filing of a supplemental certificate of compliance, identifying the additional material and information provided. It bears emphasizing, however, that the application of CPL §§245.60 and 245.50(1) pre-supposes the prosecutor’s exercise of due diligence before they filed their original certificate of compliance. These sections clearly apply only where, after exercising due diligence, before filing their original certificate of compliance, a party “subsequently learns of additional material or information which it would have been under a duty to disclose pursuant to any provisions of this article….,” [CPL §245.60] through the continued exercise of due diligence. See: People v. Rosario, 70 Misc.3d 753, 139 N.Y.S.3d 498 (Co. Ct. Albany Co. 2020); People v. Aquino, 72 Misc.3d 518, 146 N.Y.S.3d 906 (Crim Ct. Kings Co. 2021); People v. Johnson, 70 Misc.3d 1205(A); 135 N.Y.S.3d 811 (Co. Ct. Albany Co. 2021) Contrary to the argument of the People herein, these sections do not relieve the People of their obligation to timely file a proper certificate of compliance because they, in the words of the People in the matter sub judice, “for lack of a better phrase ‘messed up’…[and did] not turn things over that maybe they should have.” [italics in original] (Memorandum of Law 5/17/23, 25) Within the context of the broad, open and expeditious discovery contemplated in CPL Article 245, section 245.60 cannot be read to mean that the People may mete out discovery in a piecemeal fashion and file repetitive certificates of compliance, where they have failed to make a diligent effort and reasonable inquiry to know of the existence of discoverable evidence and information. To permit the People to proceed in such a manner would allow them to file a certificate of compliance and a certificate of readiness, stopping the speedy trial clock, before they have, in good faith, fully complied with their discovery obligations, as long as they subsequently provide the missing items and file a supplemental certificate of compliance. Such a procedure would make a mockery of the clear intent of CPL Article 245 and reinstate the slow drip of discovery which had occurred under the former CPL Article 240. With all of these principles in mind, we now turn to the specific facts and allegations of the parties herein. The Defendant alleges that the People’s COC is improper and that their COR is therefore illusory. In support of this argument, the Defendant points to nine (9) categories of items she claims the People failed to disclose prior to filing their COC and COR. 1. Identities and contact information for two witnesses on body worn camera video The Defendant alleges that there are two witnesses clearly depicted on the body worn camera video footage of an Officer Duprey, provided by the People, talking to police officers at the scene of a motor vehicle accident in which the Defendant was involved prior to her arrest, for whom the People failed to provide names and contact information. The People do not deny that they have failed to provide the Defendant with any information concerning these two witnesses. Instead, misconstruing their obligation pursuant to CPL §245.20(2), the People aver that they “do not have to go out of their way to identify witnesses that we do not have the identities or contact information for.” (Memorandum of Law 5/17/23, 35) As indicated hereinabove, CPL §245.20(2), in fact, requires the People to “make diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information…where it exists but is not within the prosecutor’s possession custody or control.” While the People pay lip service to having “performed their due diligence with respect to the identity of the witnesses at the scene(,)”(Memorandum of Law 5/17/23, 35), they fail to utter a word about what efforts they made to identify these two specific witnesses. When their COC is challenged, the People cannot think that merely uttering the magic words “due diligence” will satisfy their obligations. A bare bones assertion of due diligence simply is not good enough. See: People v. McKinney, 71 Misc.3d 1221(A), 145 N.Y.S3d 328 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2021); People v. Georgiopoulos, supra.; People v. Williams, 72 Misc.3d 1214(A), 150 N.Y.S.3d 234 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2021) The People must specify the due diligence they exercised. See: People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d 563, 130 N.Y.S.3d 614 (Crim Ct. Kings Co. (2020); People v. Critten, 77 Misc.3d 1219(A), 179 N.Y.S.3d 552 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2022) For illustrative purposes, compare People v. Kheir, 74 Misc.3d 712, 162 N.Y.S.3d 897 (Justice Ct. Town of Greenburgh 2022) with People v. Pierna, 74 Misc.3d 1072, 163 N.Y.S.3d 897 (Crim Ct. Bronx Co. 2022). In Kheir, supra., the court, inter alia, declined to strike the prosecution’s certificate of compliance and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §170.30(1)(e), finding: In its affirmation, the People clearly articulate its ‘efforts to comply with CPL 245.20(1) with respect to the statutory subsections or specific items of discovery at issue’ (citation omitted). The People also established its good faith compliance ‘by recounting the steps [it] took to obtain certain materials or ascertain the existence thereof, [and] explaining the reasons why particular items are outstanding, lost or destroyed…’ (citations omitted). Kheir. Id. at 712, 162 N.Y.S.3d 897 (Justice Ct. Town of Greenburgh 2022) Providing some of the detail with which the prosecution in that case set forth their due diligence. the court noted: In her uncontroverted affirmation, ADA Johnson avers that since the inception of the case she had an open dialogue with Detective Albano, the detective assigned to the case. ADA Johnson further affirms that because of this ongoing communication, she learned on December 4, 2020, (before the People filed the COC), about a supplemental, amended statement made by the complainant. ADA Johnson immediately requested that this document be provided to the People to disclose to defendant. Then, in further review of the file, ADA Johnson discovered that there were yet additional missing items, including a booking photograph, booking report, and fingerprint rap sheet, which the prosecutor immediately requested from Greenburgh Police Department, (GPD), so that these documents could be provided to defendant. The communications between ADA Johnson, Detective Albano, and GPD members were confirmed by emails attached as unnumbered exhibits to the People’s affirmation. The People also attached receipts confirming the electronic transfer of these documents to defense counsel, and an email from Jack Algaba from GPD to the People stating, “it appears you [the People] have everything related to [the] case” (affirmation in opposition of ADA Courtney Johnson, unnumbered exhibit). Kheir, Id. at 717-718, 162 N.Y.S.3d 897, 902-903 (Justice Ct. Town of Greenburgh 2022) Contrast that with People v. Pierna, supra., wherein the court invalidated the prosecution’s certificate of compliance and certificate of readiness and granted the defendant’s speedy trial motion. In that case, after appropriately noting, “‘upon a challenge to a certificate of compliance, the People must articulate their efforts to comply with CPL §245.20(1) with respect to the statutory subsection or specific items of discovery at issue,’ People v. Rodriguez, 73 Misc. 3d 411, 152 N.Y.S.3d 879[,]” the court specifically noted, “ inasmuch as the People failed to articulate any efforts they made in obtaining the vouchering paperwork or determining its existence before they filed their November 15, 2021 COC, it cannot be said that they exercised ‘due diligence’ in complying with their discovery obligations (citations omitted).” People v. Pierna, supra, at 1092, 163 N.Y.S.3d 897, 909 (Crim Ct. Bronx Co. 2022). While it is clear that in the matter sub judice that the People fail to articulate any effort they made in an attempt to identify the two witnesses seen on Officer Duprey’s body camera video footage talking to police officers at the scene, it is most striking that the People fail to even attempt to explain what efforts they made, if any, to speak with Officer Duprey or the other officers at the scene about the identity of these witnesses. Compare: People v. Torres, 73 Misc.3d 1206(A), 183 N.Y.S.3d 842 (Crim. Ct. Queens Co. 2023) “In these circumstances, [the court] finds that the People failed to ‘exercise due diligence’ and did not ‘mak[e] reasonable inquiries to ascertain’ the identities of all…witnesses related to the case….” People v. LeClair, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23146 (App. Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2023) 2. Identity and contact information for tow truck driver The Defendant likewise alleges that the People failed to provide her with the name and contact number of the tow truck driver who arrived at the scene of the subject accident until April 20, 2023, almost two months after the People filed their COC. The People argue that the identity of the tow truck driver is not discoverable because it is in the possession of a third party, the towing company. The People further opine that the tow truck driver, with whom the People appear to have never spoken, “does not possess any information that is related to the subject matter of the case.” (Memorandum of Law 5/15/23, 36) The People go on to say that, on January 3, 2023, they provided the Defendant with the impound paperwork for the towing company, A-1 Grand, subsequent to the filing of their COC, called A-1 Grand, obtained the name of the tow truck driver and provided same to the Defendant on April 20, 2023, almost two months after the People filed their COC. It is difficult to understand how the People can suggest that the tow truck driver has no information related to the subject matter of this case. The tow truck driver undeniably responded to the scene of the accident in which the Defendant was involved, has relevant information regarding the accident location and the condition of the vehicles and possibly has information concerning the Defendant’s condition. These are all things that make his identity ripe for discovery. What the People also overlook is that the name of the tow truck driver is in the possession of the police and therefore, deemed to be in the possession of the prosecutor. See: CPL §245.20(2). As indicated hereinabove, that section also mandates that the People make diligent good faith effort to make available material and information not in their possession or control. The People’s own papers submitted in opposition, however, demonstrate their utter lack of due diligence in attempting obtaining this information before filing their COC on March 1, 2023. The People acknowledge that, at least by January 3, 2023, two months before filing their COC they had in their possession the identity of the towing company. Nevertheless, it was not until after they filed their COC that the People bothered to contact the towing company to obtain the name of the driver who responded to the scene of the subject accident. It is obvious from the People’s papers that the identity of the tow truck driver was easy to obtain. All the People had to do was to make the effort. 3. Memorialization of notes written on P.O. DuPrey’s hand The Defendant alleges that Police Officer Duprey is seen in body worn camera video footage taking notes on his hand. The Defendant initially challenged the People’s COC because she never received a written memorialization of those notes. The People responded by indicating that, after consultation with the Nassau County Police Department, it was confirmed that no memorialization of those notes occurred. The Defendant now challenges the People’s COC, arguing that the People did not inform her of the absence of such notes prior to filing their COC and did not provide any information to the Defendant concerning their efforts to ascertain their existence. The Defendant’s argument is without merit. The People’s discovery obligation is to make available to the Defendant the items enumerated in CPL §245.20(1). There is nothing in the statute that requires the People to explain to a defendant why or how they determined that any such an item does not exist. The Assistant District Attorney handling the matter has made a representation that there was no memorialization of the notes taken on Officer Duprey’s hand. Unless and until it is demonstrated that such memorialized notes exist and that the People failed to exercise due diligence in making same available to the Defendant, this does not appear to be a basis to strike the People’s COC. 4. Nassau County Police Department Central Testing Section Video The Defendant does not dispute that the People timely provided her with a link to this video footage. The Defendant, nevertheless, challenges the People’s COC because she was unable to open the link due to some unidentified technical issue. The Defendant notified the People of this technical problem on March 19, 2023, almost three weeks after receiving the People’s COC, and the People responded on April 19, 2023, again forwarding the video footage, which the Defendant was then able to access. The People allege that the Defendant’s inability to initially open the video footage was not their fault. The People further allege, and the Defendant does not dispute in her reply, that: The People provided the videos in the format in which we had them at the time. They were viewable, but Defense counsel had to download the zip file, extract the block video, and play them through the player provided in the zip file. The People had to access these videos in the same manner and had to perform the same steps to view the videos…. the People unzipped these videos as a courtesy, and responded to Defense Counsel’s email in an attempt to diligently confer flies (sic)…(Memorandum of Law 5/27/23, 40) Under the circumstances presented, the court finds that the People have demonstrated their due diligence and good faith in initially providing the Defendant with the subject video footage and subsequently providing the Defendant with an additional manner to more easily access same. The fact that the Defendant could not open the zip file provided her is not properly visited upon the People under these circumstances. 5. 100 additional pages of disciplinary records for 911 Operator Christine Croce The Defendant alleges, and the People concede, that on April 20, 2023, almost two months after filing their COC, the People provided the Defendant with one hundred additional pages of disciplinary records for 911 Operator Christine Croce. The People argue that the records they provided are not actually discoverable because “911 Operator Croce is barely mentioned in [the subject disciplinary records].” (Memorandum of Law 5/17/23, 49) The People further allege that their failure to provide the Defendant with these records prior to filing their COC “was simply an error in which the People uploaded the wrong document, and was inadvertent.” (Memorandum of Law 5/17/23, 49) This is now at least the sixth time in matters pending before this court, that the People have offered this excuse for failing to properly serve all required discovery before filing a COC and COR. The People’s repeated “simple errors,” “inadvertence,” “unintentional oversight,” or “mere technical errors,” at best, described the People’s carelessness. Without any other detail or explanation, they most certainly do not demonstrate due diligence. People v. Guzman, 75 Misc.3d 132(A), 168 N.Y.S.3d 212 (App. Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2022) reiterated that, “Compliance with the discovery requirements of CPL 245.20 is a prerequisite to a valid statement of readiness absent the showing of ‘special circumstances’ (CPL 245.50[3])[,]” and explicitly noted “ that office failure does not amount to special circumstances (see e.g. People v. Briggs, 38 NY2d 319, 324 [1975]).” Additionally, contrary to the People’s argument, it does not matter that 911 Operator Christine Croce is “barely mentioned” in the subject disciplinary records or, as the People allege, is not “specifically” mentioned as one of the individuals that did anything wrong. By their statements alone, leaving out their qualifying language, the People acknowledge that Ms. Croce is “mentioned” in the subject disciplinary records as an individual who may have done something wrong. It is for this very reason that the Defendant is entitled to the full disclosure of all impeachment evidence. See: In the Matter of Jayson C., 200 A.D.3d 447, 159 N.Y.S.3d 40 (1st Dept. 2021) Moreover, if the People truly believed these records were not discoverable, their obligation was to move for a protective order, pursuant to CPL §245.70, before filing their COC, not to make that determination on their own. 6. Disciplinary records of Police Officers Obert-Thorn and Komarnicki The Defendant alleges that the People have to make the complete disciplinary records relating to Police Officer John Obert-Thorn and Police Officer Michael Komarnicki available to her before filing their COC. According to the Defendant, the People have only provided her with summaries of such records. The People argue that they have reviewed the complete disciplinary records for Officers Obert-Thorn and Komarnicki and have determined that the records relating to Officer Obert-Thorn, identified as CT 66-2012, are the only records which tend to impeach. The People allege that they have provided the Defendant with the entirety of these records. The People do not deny that for the remainder they only provided the Defendant with summaries. The People further argue that these disciplinary records are not discoverable by the Defendant, because they do not relate to the subject matter of the case. Among the items the People are mandated to disclose are. “All evidence and information, including that which is known to police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government’s behalf in the case, that tends to:…impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness….” CPL §245.20(1)(k)(iv) This is a far broader standard which replaced the “materiality” requirement of the People’s Brady1 and Giglio2 obligations, as they existed prior to the enactment of Article 245. This standard, of “tends to…impeach,” has appropriately been defined, in these circumstances, as “‘that which tends to demonstrate an untruthful bent or significantly reveals a willingness to place the advancement of his individual self-interest ahead of principle or of the interest of society,’ or proof that the person is ‘guilty of prior immoral, vicious or criminal conduct bearing on credibility.’” People v. Portillo, 73 Misc.3d 216, 221, 153 N.Y.S.3d 758, 763 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2021) In this same vein, as appropriately noted in People v. McKinney, 71 Misc.3d 1221(A), 145 N.Y.S3d 328 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2021): While the list of items for which disclosure is required may have been partially drawn from Brady, see e.g. William C. Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY C.P.L. §245.10, the People’s specific discovery obligations under C.P.L. §245.20(1)(k) go beyond the Supreme Court’s mandate in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Importantly, the statute abandons the ‘materiality’ requirement of Brady, see 373 U.S. at 87, in favor of broader disclosures, encompassing ‘all evidence and information’ which ‘tends to impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness…irrespective of whether the prosecutor credits the information.’ C.P.L. §245.20(1)(k). More expansive than Brady, C.P.L. §245.20(1) also requires the disclosure of ‘all evidence and information’ (emphasis added), without regard for whether such evidence and information is already known to the defendant, or was previously disclosed in a different form. Compare People v. LaValle, 3 NY3d 88 (2004). See also: People v. Castellanos, 72 Misc.3d 371, 148 N.Y.S.3d652 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2021); People v. Rosario, 70 Misc.3d 753, 139 N.Y.S.3d 498 (Co. Ct. Albany Co. 2020) Similarly, contrary to the People’s argument, “impeachment evidence and information is not limited to that which is related to the subject matter of the underlying case.” People v. Williams, 72 Misc.3d 1214(A), 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 50743(U)(Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2021); See also: People v. Altug, 70 Misc.3d 1218(A), 139 N.Y.S.3d 791 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2021) This is consistent with the well-established principle that “law enforcement witnesses should be treated in the same manner as any other witness for purposes of cross-examination.” People v. Smith, 27 N.Y.3d 652, 661-662, 36 N.Y.S.3d 861, 867 (2016); See also: People v. Rouse, 34 N.Y.3d 2019, 117 N.Y.S.3d 634 (2019); People v. Watson, 163 A.D.3d 855, 81 N.Y.S.3d 449 (2nd Dept. 2018) Consistent therewith, as noted in People v. Soto, 72 Misc.3d 1153, 1160, 152 N.Y.S.3d 274, 280 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2021) Impeachment evidence and information is that which concerns the credibility of the officer witness — regardless of the subject matter of the charges against the defendant (People v. Smith, 27 N.Y.3d 652, 36 N.Y.S.3d 861, 57 N.E.3d 53 [2016] [cross-examination concerning any immoral, vicious or criminal act which may affect witness' character and show unworthiness of belief]; People v. Beal, supra. (same); People v. Altug, supra.). As the court pointed out in People v. Edwards, 74 Misc.3d 433, 440, 160 N.Y.S.3d 532, 540 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2021), to ignore this and: [t]o hold that impeachment material arising from incidents unrelated to the defendant’s case can be withheld runs counter to the plain language of the statute. Such a narrow reading would mean that, in a wholly new discovery article that in all other respects expanded the People’s disclosure obligations from the prior law, the Legislature narrowed the disclosure requirements with respect to impeachment material. Indeed, it would be an absurd interpretation of CPL §245.20(1)(k) to limit a defendant’s right to confront a police witness to impeachable conduct relating directly to the charge pending before the court, while turning a blind eye to any impeachable conduct which preceded the pending matter, as the People suggest. To accept that interpretation would allow a police witness to escape scrutiny for prior immoral, vicious or criminal acts he or she may have committed which may affect his or her character and show unworthiness of belief. Moreover, as pointed out in People v. Portillo, supra., such an interpretation is in direct conflict with the Court of Appeals’ decision in People v. Rouse, supra., “which addressed issues striking similar to those presented to this court.” As the court in Portillo, supra. at 221, 153 N.Y.S.3d 758, 764 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2021) recounted: In Rouse, the People’s witness was a police officer who had misled a federal prosecutor in an unrelated ticket-fixing scheme. The trial court ‘questioned whether that dishonesty was a bad act, concluding, among other things that the elicitation of that officer’s lack of specificity’ to the federal prosecutor would be ‘quite damaging’ and that, absent proof that officer was either ‘administratively sanctioned’ with respect to his dealings with that prosecutor or ‘federally charged,’ there was no ‘good faith basis for’ exploring that question.’ People v. Rouse, 34 N.Y.3d 269, 277, 117 N.Y.S.3d 634, 140 N.E.3d 957 (2019). The New York Court of Appeals found the trial court in error. Consistent with these principles, particularly in light of the repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a, as this court has previously detailed in People v. Herrera, 71 Misc.3d 1205, 142 N.Y.S.3d 791 (District Ct. Nassau Co. 2021), the People’s discovery obligation pursuant to CPL §245.20(1)(k), includes “‘any record created in furtherance of a law enforcement disciplinary proceeding’ (Public Officers Law 86[6], see also. Buffalo Police Benevolent Association, Inc. v. Brown, 69 Misc. 3d 998 [Sup Ct, Erie County October 9, 2020]).” People v. Cooper, 71 Misc.3d 559, 562, 143 N.Y.S.3d 805, 808 (Co. Ct. Erie Co. 2021); See also: People v. Perez, 71 Misc.3d 1214(A), 144 N.Y.S.3d 332 (Crim. Ct. Bronx Co. 2021) This is also consistent with the plain language of CPL §245.20(1)(k)(iv), which mandates the disclosure of “All evidence and information…that tends to impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness[.]” (emphasis added) This cannot simply mean summaries of disciplinary records, letters of censure or officers’ self-reporting questionnaires. See: People v. Williams, supra., People v. Cooper, supra., People v. McKinney, supra. “ All” must mean “all,” See: People v. Castellanos, supra., and “evidence” must include the actual documents, not just “information.” To reject this interpretation, as the People suggest we should, would render the words “evidence and,” as contained in CPL §245.20(1)(k)(iv), superfluous, in violation of the fundamental principles of statutory construction providing, “Whenever possible, statutory language should be harmonized, giving effect to each component and avoiding a construction that treats a word or phrase as superfluous (see Matter of Mestecky v. City of New York, 30 N.Y.3d 239, 243, 88 N.E.3d 365 [2017]).” Lemma v. Nassau County Police Indemnification Board, 31 N.Y.3d 523, 528, 80 N.Y.S.3d 669, 673 (2018) Contrary to the People’s argument, as the court noted in People v. Spaulding, 75 Misc.3d 1219(A), 169 N.Y.S.3d 800 (Crim. Ct. Bronx Co. 2022): ‘It is not for the People to decide, in the first instance, if a particular item from a disciplinary record might be admissible or might impeach a witness.’ People v. Pennant, 73 Misc 3d 753, 761 (Nassau Cty. Dist. Ct. 2021). ‘As the Court of Appeals has long recognized, the best judge of the impeachment value of evidence is the ‘single-minded counsel for the accused.” Edwards, 74 Misc 3d at 443 (quoting People v. Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 290 (1961)). ‘To permit the single-minded counsel for the accused to be permitted only to see filtered allegations of misconduct impinges on counsel’s ability to represent the accused.’ Id. It also violates the plain text of C.P.L. §245.20(1)(k), which demands that the People disclose ‘all’ impeachment information relating to their testifying officers — not to pick and choose which they think would have ‘impact’ on the officer’s credibility. The clear scope of the statute removes that discretion from the People.’ Pennant, 73 Misc 3d at 761. There are many trial court decisions requiring the prosecution to make complete disciplinary records available to a defendant. Just some of those cases are, People v. Figueroa, 78 Misc.3d 1203(A), 183 N.Y.S.3d 298 (Crim. Ct. Queens Co. 2023); People v. Rugerio-Rivera, 77 Misc.3d 1230(A), 181 N.Y.S.3d 460 (Crim. Ct., Queens Co. 2023); People v. Trotman, 77 Misc. 3d 1210(A), 178 N.Y.S.3d 426 Crim. Ct., Queens Co. 2022); People v. Goggins, 76 Misc. 3d 898, 173 N.Y.S.3d 901 (Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2022); People v. Martinez, 75 Misc. 3d 1212(A), 168 N.Y.S.3d 679 (Crim. Ct., NY Co. 2022); People v. Polanco-Chavarria, 74 Misc. 3d 1210(A), 160 N.Y.S.3d 562 (County Ct., Rockland Co. 2021); People v. Best, 76 Misc. 3d 1210(A), 173 N.Y.S.3d 917 (Crim. Ct., Queens Co. 2022); People v. Guzman, 77 Misc. 3d 1223(A), 179 N.Y.S.3d 894 (Crim. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2023); People v. Critten, 77 Misc. 3d 1219(A), 179 N.Y.S.3d 552 (Crim. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2022): People v. Darren, 75 Misc. 3d 1208(A), 167 N>Y.S.3d 384 (Crim. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2022); People v. Sozoranga-Palacios, 73 Misc. 3d 1214(A), 154 N.Y.S.3d 747 Crim. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2021); People v. Cooper, supra; People v. Portillo, supra. Of even greater significance, there is now clear appellate authority on this issue, which the People cannot and must not, in good faith, continue to ignore. In Matter of Jayson C., 200 A.D.3d 447, 159 N.Y.S.3d 40, 42 (1st Dept. 2021), speaking of the complete disclosure of disciplinary records, the Appellate Division noted, “CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv),…broadly requires disclosure of all impeachment evidence….” (emphasis added) There being no contrary opinion from any other Appellate Division, this decision is binding authority on trial courts in all judicial departments. See: Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms, 102 A.D.2d 663, 476 N.Y.S.2d 918 (2nd Dept. 1984); People v. Turner, 5 N.Y.3d 476, 806 N.Y.S.2d 154 (2005) This same position, regarding the disclosure of complete disciplinary records, was adopted by the Appellate Term in People v. Rodriguez, 77 Misc.3d 23, 182 N.Y.S.3d 481, 482 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2022), wherein the court held. “On this record Criminal Court properly held that the November 12, 2020 COC was not valid and therefore did not stop the speedy trial clock (see CPL 245.50[3]). The People failed to provide relevant records to defendant, including underlying impeachment materials pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(k) (see Matter of Jayson C., 200 A.D.3d 447, 159 N.Y.S.3d 40 [2021]; see also People ex rel. Ferro v. Brann, 197 A.D.3d 787, 788, 153 N.Y.S.3d 194 [2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 909, 2022 WL 2126330 [2022]).” (emphasis added) It should be noted that the People also conflate discovery with admissibility at hearing or trial. Ultimately, following discovery, and upon a motion in laminae, preceding a hearing or trial, the court will determine if the records in question may be used for impeachment purposes. See: People v. Randolph, 69 Misc.3d 770, 132 N.Y.S.3d 726 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2020). People v. Cooper, supra., People v. Castellanos, supra., People v. Williams, supra. Finally, if the People truly believe that there are disciplinary records which should not be subject to discovery or inspection, their obligation is to make a motion for a protective order, pursuant to CPL §245.70(1). Only if they so move, and “[u]pon a showing of good cause…the court may at any time order that discovery or inspection of any kind of material or information under this article be denied, restricted, conditioned or deferred,…. “CPL §245.70(1) The People may not make this determination on their own. Their failure to avail themselves of this procedure only further demonstrates their lack of good faith and due diligence. 7. Expert disclosure for Elizabeth Spratt and Police Officer John Obert-Thorn The People have identified Elizabeth Spratt and Police Officer John Obert-Thorn as expert witnesses who are expected to testify in this matter. The Defendant alleges that the People have failed “to turn over reports prepared by either expert or any written statement of facts and opinion to which either expert is expected to testify or the grounds for said opinion as required by CPL 245.20(1)(f).” (Bobley Affirmation 5/10/23, 47) The People state that they have provided the Defendant with the curriculum vitae for Ms. Spratt and Officer Obert-Thorn. The People further argue that “[t]he summary of the grounds on which the Expert will testify would be the factual allegations in this case, [as] provided in the People’s [Automatic Discovery Form] ADF.” (Memorandum of Law, 5/17/23. 41) The ADF states, “Elizabeth Spratt will testify to the effects of drugs and alcohol on a person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle, and back extrapolation. John Obert-Thorn will testify to the working order of the intoxlyzer (sic) instrument;” (People’s Exhibit 1) The People argue that “this disclosure is sufficient pursuant to CPL 245.29(1)(f). (Memorandum of Law, 5/17/23, 42) The People are mistaken. CPL §245.20(1)(f) provides, in pertinent part: Expert opinion evidence, including the name, business address, current curriculum vitae, a list of publications, and a list of proficiency tests and results administered or taken within the past ten years of each expert witness whom the prosecutor intends to call as a witness at trial or a pre-trial hearing, and all reports prepared by the expert that pertain to the case, or if no report is prepared, a written statement of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion…. If in the exercise of reasonable diligence this information is unavailable for disclosure within the time period specified in subdivision one of section 245.10 of this article, that period shall be stayed without need for a motion pursuant to subdivision two of section 245.70 of this article; except that the prosecution shall notify the defendant in writing that such information has not been disclosed, and such disclosure shall be made as soon as practicable and not later than sixty calendar days before the first scheduled trial date, unless an order is obtained pursuant to section 245.70 of this article. The People have failed, in almost every way, to comply with the clear requirements of this statute The People have not provided the Defendant with reports from Ms. Spratt or Officer Obert-Thorn. Similarly, while the People have provided the Defendant with the subject matters they expert their experts to address, they have failed provide the Defendant with “a written statement of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.” The People’s generalized statement, first provided to the Defendant after they filed their COC, that the facts upon which the experts will rely are the “allegations in this case.” (Memorandum of Law, 5/17/23, 41) is woefully insufficient. While the People have indicated that Ms. Spratt is expected to testify concerning the effects of drugs and alcohol on a person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle and a reverse extrapolation, nowhere do they indicate Ms. Spratt’s anticipated opinion concerning the effects of drugs and alcohol on a person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle or her opinion of the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time she was operating a motor vehicle, after performing a reverse extrapolation, nor do they provide the grounds for any such opinion. The same is true for the anticipated opinions of Officer Obert-Thorn and the facts and grounds upon which his opinions are based. The People have also failed to notify the Defendant in writing that they are unable, after exercising reasonable diligence, to provide this information at this time. Moreover, the People provide no explanation of their efforts to obtain the statutorily mandated information. 8. Picture of an intoxilyzer The Defendant complains that the People provided her with a photograph of an Intoxilyzer 9000, but not the Intoxilyzer 9000 used to test the Defendant’s blood alcohol content on the night of her arrest. CPL §245.20(1)(h) provides that the prosecution must provide a defendant with “All photographs and drawings made or completed by a public servant engaged in law enforcement activity, or which were made by a person whom the prosecutor intends to call as a witness at trial or a pre-trial hearing, or which relate to the subject matter of the case.” CPL §245,20(1)(i) mandates the production of “All photographs, photocopies and reproductions made by or at the direction of law enforcement personnel of any property prior to its release pursuant to section 450.10 of the penal law.” There being no indication that anyone took a photograph of the Intoxilyzer 9000 used to test the Defendant’s blood alcohol content on the night of her arrest, there does not appear to be any such photograph for the People to provide to the Defendant. The statute clearly does not mandate that the People take such a photograph. 9. Toxicology link not accessible The Defendant alleges that links providing “maintenance and calibration records relative to PBT serial #10631 were not accessible.” (Bobley Affirmation 5/10/23. 52) The Defendant further alleges that they notified the People of this problem on March 19, 2023, and that the People have failed to respond. The People allege that they have had no problem opening the link provided to the Defendant containing the subject documents and that they have no knowledge as to why the Defendant cannot access same. Moreover, the People indicate that, in fact, they opened the link, noticed there was a missing page and provided that page to the Defendant, along with a Supplemental Certificate of Compliance and Certificate of Readiness, on May 17, 2023. It would appear from the foregoing, that the People timely provided the Defendant with the subject link, in good faith. It further appears that the problem with the Defendant’s inability to access this link lies on the Defendant’s end, not the People’s. This is not a basis to strike the People’s COC. The People having failed to provide the Defendant with the identity and contact information for the two witnesses observed on body camera video footage talking to the police at the scene of the subject accident in this case, the identification of the subject tow truck driver, the complete disciplinary records for 911 Operator Christine Croce, the complete disciplinary files for Officers Obert-Thorn and Komarnicki and a proper expert disclosure, before they filed their COC filed on March 1, 2023, and given the People’s complete failure to demonstrate their “due diligence” and “reasonable inquiries” to learn of, obtain and provide these items to the Defendant, the court finds that the COC filed on March 1, 2023 was improper and was not filed in good faith. See: People ex. re. Ferro v. Brann, 197 A.D.3d 787, 153 N.Y.S.3d 194 (2nd Dept. 2021) lv. den. 38 N.Y.3d 909 170 N.Y.S.3d 540 (2022); People v. LaClair, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23146 (App. Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2023) The only question remaining on this issue is whether, under the circumstances presented, the court may vacate the People’s COC or is the court, as argued by the People, limited to the sanctions set forth in CPL §245.80. Fortunately, there is now appellate authority addressing this issue. In People v. Gaskin, 214 A.D.3d 1353, 1355, 186 N.Y.S.3d 467, 470 (4th Dept. 2023). the Appellate Division Fourth Department made clear: We agree with defendant that the court’s use of a prejudice-only standard for evaluating the propriety of the certificate of compliance was error because the clear and unambiguous terms of CPL 245.50 establish that a certificate of compliance is proper where its filing is “in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances” (CPL 245.50[1]; see generally People v. Rodriguez, 77 Misc.3d 23, 25, 182 N.Y.S. 3d 481 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2022]). On a CPL 30.30 motion, the question is not whether defendant was prejudiced by an improper certificate of compliance (see People v. Trotman, 77 Misc.3d 1210[A], 2022 WL 17411089 [Crim. Ct., Queens County 2022]; People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d 563, 574, 130 N.Y.S.3d 614 [Crim. Ct., Kings County 2020]). Indeed, it appears that the court, in evaluating whether defendant was prejudiced by the People’s failure to disclose certain items, conflated the standard applicable to requests for sanctions under CPL 245.80 — which does involve a prejudice analysis — with the standard for evaluating the propriety of a certificate of compliance for purposes of determining whether the People’s statement of readiness was valid (see CPL 30.30 [5]; 245.50). See also: People v. Guzman, 75 Misc.3d 132(A), 168 N.Y.S.3d 212 (App. Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2022) [failure to provide video and demonstrate due diligence and reasonable inquires to obtain same invalidates COC]; People v. LaClair, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23146 (App. Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2023) [failure to exercise due diligence and make reasonable inquiry to ascertain identity of law enforcement witnesses invalidates COC]; People v. Rodriguez, 77 Misc.3d 23, 182 N.Y.S.3d 481 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2022) [failure to provide underlying disciplinary records or demonstrate due diligence and reasonable inquiry invalidates COC] Accordingly, that branch of the Defendant’s motion to strike the People’s COC, filed March 1, 2023, is granted. SPEEDY TRIAL The People’s obligation to be ready for trial in accordance with the time limits set out in CPL §30.30(1) “is purely a statutory ‘readiness rule’. It was enacted to serve the narrow purpose of insuring prompt prosecutorial readiness for trial, and its provisions must be interpreted accordingly (see, People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 535, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119, 488 N.E.2d 1231; People v. Worley, 66 N.Y.2d 523, 527, 498 N.Y.S.2d 116, 488 N.E.2d 1228; Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons. Law of N.Y., Book 11A, CPL 30.30, pp. 148-149; compare CPL 30.20).” People v. Sinistaj, 67 N.Y.2d 236, 239, 510 N.Y.S.2d 793, 794 (1986) Where, as here, the top charge is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months, the People must be ready within ninety (90) days, plus any excludable time. CPL §30.30(1)(b). People v. Young, 46 Misc.3d 142(A), 13 N.Y.S.3d 852 (App. Term 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2015) Upon bringing this motion, the Defendant has the initial burden of demonstrating that the People have exceeded the speedy trial limits set out in CPL §30.30(1). “Thus, once a defendant has shown the existence of an unexcused delay greater than [ninety days], the burden of showing that time should be excluded falls upon the People.” People v. Santos, 68 N.Y.2d 859, 508 N.Y.S.2d 411 (1986); See also: People v. Appel, 44 Misc.3d 133(A), 997 N.Y.S.2d 99 (App. Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2014) The Defendant has met her initial burden, providing detailed allegations asserting that the People should be charged with a total of seventy-one (71) days between the date of the Defendant’s arraignment, on December 14, 2023, to the filing of the People’s COC and COR on March 1, 2023, and then further arguing that, “The People must be charged with the time after the illusory filing on March 1, 2023.” (Bobley Affirmation 5/10/23, 67) The People do not suggest how with many days of speedy trial time they are to be charged. December 14, 2022 to January 5, 2023 The Defendant was arraigned on December 14, 2022. The Defendant acknowledges that the matter was adjourned to January 5, 2023 for the People’s discovery compliance and for the Defendant to retain counsel. The Defendant alleges, and the People do not dispute, that her counsel filed a Notice of Appearance and served same on the People on December 19, 2022. For this reason, the Defendant argues, and the People do not dispute, that the People are to be charged with the time from December 19, 2022 to January 5, 2023. CPL §30.30(4)(f) explicitly provides, in pertinent part, “In computing the time within which the people must be ready for trial pursuant to subdivisions one and two of this section. the following periods must be excluded: the period during which the defendant is without counsel through no fault of the court[.]” This subparagraph “ expressly exempts periods during which defendant is without counsel.” People v. Correa, 77 N.Y.2d 930, 569 N.Y.S.2d 601 (1991). The speedy trial clock will begin to run, however, when counsel for a defendant files a Notice of Appearance, as required by 22 NYCRR 200.5. See: People v. Drake, 205 A.D.2d 996, 613 N.Y.S.2d 961 (3rd Dept. 1994). Accordingly, the People shall be charged with sixteen (16) days for this period. January 5, 2023 to January 27, 2023 At the conference held on January 5, 2023, the People advised the court that they had not filed a COC or COR. The matter was adjourned to January 27, for the People’s discovery compliance. Accordingly, the People shall be charged with twenty-two (22) days for this adjournment. January 27, 2023 to February 21, 2023 At the conference held on January 27, 2023, the People advised the court that they had not filed a COC or COR. The matter was adjourned to February 21, 2023, for the People’s discovery compliance. Accordingly, the People shall be charged with twenty-five (25) days for this adjournment. February 21, 2023 to March 24, 2023 At the conference held on February 21, 2023, the People advised the court that they had not filed a COC or COR. The matter was then adjourned to March 24, 2023, for the People’s discovery compliance. On March 1, 2023, the People filed a COC and COR. The People argue that this filing tolled the speedy trial clock. As discussed at length hereinabove, the Defendant argues that the People’s COC was improper and their COR illusory, requiring the People to be charged with the entirety of this adjournment. For all of the reasons set forth hereinabove, the court has found the People’s COC, filed on March 1, 2023, to be improper and it is vacated. The People having failed to provide a proper COC, their COR filed on March 1, 2023, is found to be illusory. See: People v. Brown, 214 A.D.3d 823, 184 N.Y.S.3d 838 (2nd Dept. 2023); People v. King, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 02409 (4th Dept. 2023); People v. Gaskin, 214 A.D.3d 1353, 1355, 186 N.Y.S.3d 467, 470 (4th Dept. 2023) Accordingly, the People shall be charged with thirty-two (32) days for this adjournment. March 24, 2023 to April 20, 2023 Having received the People’s COC and COR off calendar on March 19, 2023, following her review of the discovery provided by the People, the Defendant notified the People of the deficiencies related to their COC, pursuant to CPL §245.50(4)(b). At the conference held on March 24, 2023, these deficiencies were discussed and the People requested a two week adjournment to look into the matter. The matter was adjourned to April 20, 2023. The People’s COC having been found improper and stricken and their COR having been found illusory, the People returned to a pre-readiness posture. As such, they are to be charged with the entirety of this adjournment. Accordingly, the People shall be charged with twenty-seven (27) days for this adjournment. In total, the People are charged with one hundred twenty-two (122) days of delay. CONCLUSION That branch of the Defendant’s motion seeking an order striking the People’s COC is granted; and it is hereby ORDERED, that the People’s Certificate of Compliance, filed on March 1, 2023, is vacated. That branch of the Defendant’s motion seeking an order dismissing the accusatory instruments is granted; and it is hereby ORDERED, that the accusatory instruments and the entire docket is dismissed pursuant to CPL §170.30(1)(e). This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: June 16, 2023
