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, D-88 Order on Motion ORDERED that this omnibus motion by the defendant is decided as follows: The defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §30.30 on the grounds that his statutory speedy trial rights were violated is DENIED. The defendant’s motion to strike the People’s CoC and/or SoR pursuant to CPL article 245 is DENIED. The defendant’s motion to suppress tangible, non-tangible and testimonial evidence, or granting a Mapp/Dunaway hearing is DENIED, subject to renewal after hearing. The defendant’s motion for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the chemical breath test is DENIED. The defendant’s motion to suppress statements, or for Huntley/Dunaway/Ingle hearing is DENIED, subject to renewal after hearing. The defendant’s motion for a Huntley/Dunaway/Ingle hearing is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion for a pre-trial “voluntariness” hearing for statements to be used on cross-examination is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion to preclude the admission of evidence under CPL §710.30 is DENIED, subject to renewal after the Mapp/Dunaway/Huntley hearing. The defendant’s motion for discovery pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and CPL §245.20(1)(k) is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion for a Sandoval hearing is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion for a Ventimiglia hearing is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion to file additional motions is GRANTED, to the extent indicated herein. On December 14, 2020, the defendant was arrested and charged with (1) one count of Driving While Intoxicated in violation of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (“VTL”) §1192.3, an unclassified misdemeanor; (2) one count of Driving While Intoxicated Per Se in violation of VTL §1192.2, an unclassified misdemeanor and (3) one count of Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in violation of VTL §509.1. He was arraigned on December 15, 2020. By motion dated February 7, 2024, the defendant now moves (1) to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) §30.30 on the grounds that his statutory speedy trial rights were violated and (2) to strike the People’s Certificate of Compliance (“CoC”) and/or Statement of Readiness (“SoR”) pursuant to CPL article 245. In addition, the defendant moves (3) to suppress tangible, non-tangible and testimonial evidence, or granting a Mapp/Dunaway hearing, (4) to suppress the result of the chemical breath test, (5) to suppress statements, or granting a Huntley/Dunaway hearing, (6) for a pre-trial “voluntariness” hearing for statements to be used on cross-examination, (7) to preclude the admission of evidence under CPL §710.30, (8) for discovery pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and CPL §245.20(1)(k), (9) for a Sandoval hearing, (10) for a Ventimiglia hearing and (11) to file additional motions. This Court addresses the parties’ arguments, below. A. Motion to Dismiss Based on an Alleged Speedy Trial Violation The defendant first moves to dismiss on the grounds that the People have violated his statutory speedy trial rights. (See Def.’s Aff. at
39-67). CPL §30.30(1)(b) provides, in pertinent part, that a motion to dismiss an accusatory instrument must be granted where the People are not ready for trial within: “ninety days from the commencement of a criminal action wherein a defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and none of which is a felony.” In general, the filing of the accusatory instrument marks the ‘commencement’ of the case pursuant to CPL §30.30, unless a statutory exception applies. (See CPL §30.30(1)(b) and CPL §1.20[17]). Where the defendant’s appearance was obtained by desk appearance ticket, the criminal action is deemed commenced at arraignment. (See CPL §30.30(7)(b)). Pursuant to CPL §30.30(1)(b), with respect to the misdemeanor charge, the People were required to make an effective statement of their readiness for trial within 90 days of the commencement date of the within criminal actions, taking into account all excludable time periods. The within criminal action was commenced on December 14, 2020.1 The People filed their CoC/SoR on March 11, 2021, eighty-seven (87) days later. The People filed a Supplemental CoC/SoR on April 10, 2021. The defendant contends that all time from commencement on December 14, 2020 until the filing of the instant motion on February 7, 2024, or one thousand, one hundred and fifty (1150) days, is chargeable to the People. (See Def.’s Aff. at 42). At the very least, the defendant contends that all time from commencement on December 14, 2020 until the People’s filing of the Supplemental CoC/SoR on April 10, 2021, or one hundred and sixteen (116) days, are chargeable to the People. (Id.) In opposition, the People contend that the time from December 18, 2020 until the next court appearance on February 10, 2021 (54 days) and from February 10, 2021 until the People filed their CoC/SoR on March 11, 2021 (29 days) is chargeable to them, but that the time from arraignment on December 15, 2020 until the scheduled hardship hearing on December 18, 2020 (3 days) is excludable. (See People’s Aff. in Opp. at
