In People v. R. (T.), the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed a Criminal Court decision dismissing misdemeanor charges against T. R. due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with statutory discovery obligations, which rendered their statement of readiness invalid and triggered a violation of the statutory speedy trial time limit.
T. R. was charged in Queens County Criminal Court with several offenses, including criminal obstruction of breathing, attempted third-degree assault, menacing, and second-degree harassment, stemming from an alleged altercation on August 10, 2021. The prosecution, represented filed a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) and Statement of Readiness (SoR) on October 29, 2021, asserting they had met their discovery obligations under Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 245.20. However, they noted that certain materials, including Emergency Medical Services (EMS) records from the complainant’s treatment, had not been disclosed because they were not in the prosecution’s possession or control.
On January 11, 2022, the prosecution informed the court and defense counsel that the complainant had received EMS treatment at the request of the NYPD shortly after the incident. Although the prosecution subpoenaed the records from the FDNY (which oversees EMS) on December 15, 2021, they had not received them by the time of the CoC filing. The court questioned the validity of the CoC and allowed the defense to move for dismissal based on speedy trial grounds.
The defense argued that the CoC was invalid due to the omission of the FDNY/EMS records, which were discoverable under CPL 245.20(1)(j). This provision requires disclosure of records concerning physical or mental examinations made at the request or direction of law enforcement. The court agreed, finding that EMS treatment initiated by the NYPD fell within this category. Moreover, CPL 245.20(2) obligates prosecutors to make a diligent, good faith effort to obtain such records, even if not in their possession. The court found that the prosecution failed to meet this standard, as they waited 47 days after filing the CoC to subpoena the records.
Because the CoC was not filed in good faith, the accompanying SoR was also invalid. Under CPL 30.30(1)(b), the prosecution must be ready for trial within 90 days for a class A misdemeanor. The court charged the prosecution with all 159 days from the commencement of the case to the defense’s motion to dismiss, exceeding the statutory limit. With no special circumstances to excuse the delay, the court dismissed the accusatory instrument.
And, on appeal, the AT2 affirmed.
I guess the prosecution discovered they made a big mistake.
# # #
DECISION