DECISION AND ORDER The defendant has moved for an order invalidating the People’s Certificate of Compliance (“COC”) and compelling them to disclose police paperwork. 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). The defendant requests that the COC be deemed invalid. He argues that the People improperly withheld paperwork related to the prosecution of Jermel Robinson, who was arrested around the same time and location as the defendant, also for allegedly selling narcotics. In response, the People contend that nearly all of the materials sought by the defendant were previously disclosed, except a voucher and photo of narcotics recovered from Robinson, as well as Robinson’s bench warrant, arrest photos, DA datasheet, and criminal complaint. The People represent that none of the withheld materials mention the defendant or relate to him in any way. In any event, the People note that they have since provided these materials to the defense. The defendant’s motion to invalidate the COC is denied.1 The People affirm that the withheld materials do not reference the defendant or relate to the accusations against him. Accordingly, such materials do not “relate to the subject matter of the case.” CPL §245.20(1). Alternatively, even assuming that they did, in fact, relate to the subject matter of the defendant’s case, the People’s withholding was reasonable and does not vitiate a finding of due diligence. See People v. Bay, 41 N.Y.3d 200, 211 (2023). The foregoing is the decision and order of the court. Dated: December 1, 2024
