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, ORDERED that this omnibus motion by the defendant is decided as follows: The defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments pursuant to CPL §§100.15 and 100.40 as facially insufficient is GRANTED as to the accusatory instruments charging violations of VTL §§511(1)(a) and 509(1), but DENIED as to the accusatory instrument charging a violation of VTL §375(30). The defendant’s motion to strike the People’s CoC/SoR is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §30.30 based upon an alleged speedy trial violation is DENIED. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument based upon an alleged failure to comply with the certification requirements of CPL §30.30(5-a) is DENIED, as moot. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §30.30 in the interest of justice is DENIED. The defendant’s motion to suppress any and all tangible, non-tangible evidence, or testimonial fruits, pursuant to CPL §§710.20(3), (4), 710.60 is DENIED, subject to renewal after hearing. The defendant’s motion for a Mapp/Dunaway/Ingle hearing is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion to suppress statements is DENIED, subject to renewal after hearing. The defendant’s motion for a Huntley hearing is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion for a pre-trial “voluntariness” hearing for any statements sought to be used only on cross-examination of the defendant pursuant to CPL §§60.45, 710.20(3) is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion to preclude the admission of evidence under CPL §710.30 is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion for discovery pursuant to CPL §245.20(1)(k) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963] is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion for a hearing pursuant to People v. Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974] is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion for an order directing the People to seek a hearing pursuant to People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 [1981] is GRANTED. The defendant’s motion for leave to file additional motion as necessary is GRANTED, to the extent indicated herein. On May 31, 2023, the defendant was charged with (1) one count of Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree, in violation of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (“VTL”) §511(1)(a), an unclassified misdemeanor; (2) one count of Equipment Violation: Obstructed Vision, in violation of VTL §375(30), a violation, and (3) one count of Driving Without a License in violation of VTL §509(1), a violation. He was arraigned on June 20, 2023. By motion dated June 24, 2023, the defendant now moves to (1) dismiss the accusatory instruments pursuant to CPL §§100.15 and 100.40 as facially insufficient; (2) to dismiss the accusatory instruments pursuant to CPL §30.30 based on an alleged speedy trial violation; (3) to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §30.30(5-a) based upon a failure to certify properly; (4) to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §30.30 in the interest of justice; (5) to suppress any and all tangible evidence, and/or testimonial fruits, or granting a Mapp/Dunaway/Ingle hearing pursuant to CPL §§710.20(3), (4), 710.60; (6) to suppress statements, or for a Huntley hearing; (7) for a pretrial “voluntariness” hearing for any statements sought to be used only on cross-examination of the defendant pursuant to CPL §§60.45, and 710.20(3); (8) to preclude the admission of evidence under CPL §710.30; (9) for discovery pursuant to CPL §245.20(1)(k) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963] and (10) for a hearing pursuant to People v. Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; (11) for an order directing the People to seek a hearing pursuant to People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 [1981] and (12) for leave to file additional motion as necessary. This Court addresses the parties’ arguments, below. A. Motion to Dismiss as Facially Insufficient The defendant first moves to dismiss the accusatory instruments pursuant to CPL §§100.15 and 100.40 as facially insufficient. (See Def.’s Aff. At Points A-C, at
62-81). First, the defendant contends that the accusatory instrument charging a violation of VTL §511(1)(a) is facially insufficient because (1) it was not accompanied by a certified Department of Motor Vehicle abstract (see Def.’s Aff. at Point A, at
