DECISION & ORDER By notice of omnibus motion dated October 13, 2023, defendant moves alternatively for dismissal of the accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) §§170.30 (1), 170.30 (1) (a), 170.30 (1) (f), 170.35 (1) (a) and 170.35 (1) (b); for dismissal pursuant to CPL §§30.30 and 170.30 because the People’s Certificate of Compliance (“CoC”) was illusory and based upon speedy trial grounds; for an order granting sanctions pursuant to CPL §245.80 (2) for the failure to disclose evidence; and for an order granting suppression and preclusion of evidence pursuant to Huntley/Dunaway/Payton, Rodriguez/Wade/Crews and Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux, respectively. Additionally, defendant requests the right to file a reply brief and for hearings on the underlying facts pursuant to People v. Luperon, 85 NY2d 71 [1995] and People v. Allard, 28 NY3d 41 [2016], respectively, if the People oppose the motion, and for such additional relief as this Court deems just and proper. The People opposed the motion in its entirety. 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: Defendant’s motion to dismiss the information for facial insufficiency pursuant to §§170.30 (1), 170.30 (1) (a), 170.30 (1) (f), 170.35 (1) (a) and 170.35 (1) (b) is DENIED; and Defendant’s motion for dismissal pursuant to CPL §§30.30 and 170.30 is DENIED; and The People’s CoC filed on June 8, 2023 is deemed VALID; and Defendant’s request for sanctions pursuant to CPL §245.80 (2) is DENIED; and Defendant’s request for orders suppressing evidence is DENIED but his request for Huntley/Dunaway/Payton and Wade/Crews/Rodriguez pre-trial hearings is GRANTED; and Defendant’s request for an order precluding evidence, or a Sandoval/Ventimiglia pre-trial hearing, is respectfully REFERRED to the trial court; and Defendant’s request for a hearing on the underlying facts pursuant to Luperon, supra and Allard, supra is DENIED; and The People are DIRECTED to comply with their continuing discovery obligations pursuant to CPL §245, including Brady disclosures; and Defense counsel is DIRECTED to certify discovery compliance within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order pursuant to CPL§§245.20 (4) and 245.50 (2). RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 28, 2023, defendant Julia Valentin was arraigned and charged with one count each of Penal Law (“PL”) §§150.01 (arson in the fifth degree) and 145.00 (1) (criminal mischief in the fourth degree), both misdemeanors. At the next appearance on July 28, 2023, the People advised the court that their CoC and Statement of Readiness (“SoR”) had been filed on June 8, 2023. On September 15, 2023, the People served their supplemental CoC (“SCoC”). At the appearance held on September 23, 2023, defense counsel requested a motion schedule to challenge the validity of the People’s CoC. The People opposed the motion on November 3, 2023 and defendant filed a reply brief on November 13, 2023. DISCUSSION I. Applicable Legal Standards CPL §30.30 Challenge In a motion to dismiss misdemeanor charges pursuant to CPL §30.30 (1), a defendant has the initial burden to demonstrate that the prosecution failed to declare readiness for trial within ninety days (see CPL §30.30 [1] [b]); see Luperon at 77-78). Generally, a criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument against a defendant, and it is settled law that the date on which the action is commenced is excluded from the CPL §30.30 computation (see CPL §1.20 [17]; People v. Stiles, 7 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]). Following legislative reforms to the CPL, after January 1, 2020, the People must now also satisfy their statutory obligations pursuant to CPL §245.50 (3), which provides that “the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate pursuant to subdivision one of this section” (see People v. Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337 [1985]; People v. Pierna, 74 Misc 3d 1072, 1087 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022]; People v. Aquino, 72 Misc 3d 518, 520 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2021]). Consequently, courts examine the prosecution’s efforts to ensure that it has served all known discoverable materials pursuant to CPL §245.20 to determine the validity of a CoC (see People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc 3d 563, 574-575 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2020]; People v. Vargas, 76 Misc 3d 646, 652 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022]). Facial Insufficiency Challenge To meet the jurisdictional standard for facial sufficiency, a misdemeanor complaint “need only set forth facts that establish reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the charged offense” (see People v. Smalls, 26 NY3d 1064, 1066 [2015]; see also CPL §100.40 [1] [b]; CPL §70.10). The accusatory instrument must set forth non-hearsay facts of an evidentiary nature which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged (see People v. Suber, 19 NY3d 247 [2012]; People v. Dumas, 68 NY2d 729 [1986]). It is well-settled that “mere conclusory allegations are insufficient [ ] and a purported information which fails to meet these requirements is fatally defective” (see People v. Pamulo, 48 Misc 3d 1227 [A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51286 [U], **2 [Crim Ct, New York County 2015] [citations omitted] citing People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 136 [1987]). However, “[t]he court should approach factual allegations with a fair, not overly restrictive, or technical reading” (see People v. Suquilanda, 80 Misc 3d 1220 [A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51045 [U], *2 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023] citing People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]). However, “[t]he prima facie case requirement does not necessitate that the information allege facts that would prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” (see People v. Washington, 46 Misc 3d 1210 [A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50030 [U], ***3 [Crim Ct, New York County 2015] [internal citations omitted]. Consequently, the accusatory instrument need only set forth factual allegations which “give an accused sufficient notice to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense” (see id. [internal citations omitted]). II. The Parties’ Arguments Defense counsel asserts that a significant amount of discovery remained outstanding, including FDNY records, when the People filed their CoC and SoR (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 13). Counsel argues that the FDNY is a law enforcement agency and, thus, these records were known to the prosecution and considered to be within their actual possession (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 13-14). Defendant avers that Giglio materials should be subject to automatic disclosure irrespective of the People’s decision to not call any NYPD officers as trial witnesses (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 14). Counsel states that the accusatory instrument is facially insufficient because it fails to establish that damage was caused to the tile flooring at the subject location and that the reference to “burnt marks” does not mention permanency, nor that the floor was destroyed and in need of repair (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 16-17). Defendant requests suppression of any statements for which notice was served, including statements to FDNY investigators which were purportedly made in violation of her Miranda rights or, alternatively, a Huntley/Dunaway/Payton and Rodriguez/Wade/Crews pre-trial hearing (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 20-21). Defendant further requests preclusion of any evidence concerning prior convictions or bad acts or, alternatively, a Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux hearing to determine their admissibility (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 22-23). Counsel reserves defendant’s right to file further motions (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 23). Lastly, defendant’s reply brief reiterates her prior arguments and further denies the charge that counsel ambushed the People by making belated inquiries for outstanding disclosure (affirmation of defendant’s counsel at 4, 7). Initially, the People aver that their CoC was valid even though certain items of discovery remained outstanding because they had exercised due diligence to obtain materials which were not in their possession, including notes from the investigating Fire Marshal (“FM”) and contact information for witnesses (People’s affirmation at
A, B). The prosecution further argues that it served a court-ordered subpoena to obtain Giglio records for the investigating FM, conducted an in-house search for Giglio material and disclosed other materials, including NYPD tapes, records, and PSA command lists, upon receipt (People’s affirmation at B). The People argue that counsel was impermissibly delayed in confirming outstanding disclosures and that some items which were purported to be outstanding had already been disclosed (People’s affirmation at B). The People maintain that no Giglio material was discovered for FM Wakie and that they have no duty to disclose disciplinary records concerning NYPD officers who were not involved in the investigation of the incident and would therefore not be called to testify at trial (People’s affirmation at C). The prosecution states that striking the CoC is too drastic where CPL §245.80 (1) provides less severe remedies to address discovery deficiencies (People’s affirmation at E). The People assert that their SoR was timely and that their declaration could still be held timely even if their CoC was found illusory because of special circumstances (People’s affirmation at
