DECISION AND ORDER The defendant has filed a motion requesting that the People’s Certificate of Compliance (“COC”) be invalidated, and that the Statement of Readiness be deemed illusory. The People oppose the defendant’s motion. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion is denied. The People shall disclose to the defense “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.” See Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) §245.20(1). Moreover, the People “shall make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of” discoverable material and to “cause such material or information to be made available for discovery.” CPL §245.20(2). The filing of a supplemental COC “shall not impact the validity of the original [COC]” if, as relevant, the original COC was filed “ in good faith and after exercising due diligence.” CPL §245.50(1-a). Due diligence “is a familiar and flexible standard” requiring the People to make “reasonable efforts to comply with statutory directives.” People v. Bay, 41 N.Y.3d 200, 211 (2023). Any analysis of whether the People made reasonable efforts sufficient to satisfy CPL 245 is “fundamentally case-specific, as with any question of reasonableness, and will turn on the circumstances presented.” Id. at 212. When assessing whether a prosecutor has acted with due diligence, a court should consider (1) the efforts that the prosecutor made to comply with CPL §245; (2) the volume of discovery “provided and outstanding” in the case at the time of the challenge; (3) whether the missing material would have been obvious to a diligent prosecutor; (4) the “complexity of the case;” (5) the prosecutor’s “explanation for any discovery lapse;” and (6) how the People responded when they were informed that discovery was missing. Id. The defendant contends that the People’s August 5, 2024 COC is invalid, citing the prosecutor’s belated disclosure of body-worn camera footage (“BWC”). Specifically, the defendant notes that the People did not provide, in their initial disclosures, BWC footage from the officers who responded to the first call to the restaurant — their visit at 2:56 a.m. Rather, the People only provided footage from the officers’ response to the second call to the restaurant, after the assault took place. Defendant contends that the existence of the footage should have been apparent, given that the same officers responded to the restaurant on both occasions and that, in that footage of their second visit to the restaurant at 3:30 a.m., the officers reference their previous visit. The People, in turn, contend that they acted with due diligence, citing their April 22, 2024 request for BWC from all officers who responded to the scene on the date of the incident. The People assert that, despite this specific request, the NYPD only turned over BWC footage from the second visit. The People have demonstrated that they acted with diligence in complying with discovery mandates. To begin, the People’s efforts to comply with CPL §245 in this case were adequate. The People specifically requested BWC footage from all officers who responded to the scene on the date of the incident, which logically included the footage from the officers’ first visit. To be sure, it would have been ideal for the People to specifically request the footage from that first visit, or at least note that the officers responded to the scene twice on that date. Nevertheless, CPL §245 does not require or anticipate a “perfect prosecutor.” Bay, 41 N.Y.3d at 212. Nor was the oversight obvious, given that the People had already turned over 92 separate video clips pertaining to the case. Rather, the oversight can properly be characterized as inadvertent, given both the phrasing of the People’s initial request, as well as the relatively large quantity of video discovery in this case. People v. Nelson, 75 Misc.3d 1203(A), *7 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2022) (declining to invalidate COC where non-disclosure of camera footage was inadvertent). Finally, the prosecutor swiftly cured the non-disclosure when it was brought to her attention. Indeed, within a matter of four days, the footage was requested from the NYPD, obtained, and turned over to the defense. See People v. Castelan, 83 Misc.3d 1271(A), *12-13 (Crim. Ct. Queens Co. 2024) (declining to invalidate COC where the People disclosed a “considerable volume of discovery” before filing the COC, including six BWC videos and their metadata and, upon learning of discovery oversight, made multiple requests to the NYPD for the video, disclosing it the same day it was received). Under all of the circumstances presented, this court concludes that the People acted with due diligence. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion is denied. The foregoing is the decision and order of the court. Dated: November 20, 2024
