People v. Williams

73 Misc.3d 1091

157 N.Y.S.3d 877

The PEOPLE of the State of New York,

v.Malik WILLIAMS, Defendant.

Docket No. 20038V-2021

Supreme Court, Kings County, New York.

Decided on November 15, 2021

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney (Hannan Seirafi of counsel), for plaintiff.

Brooklyn Defender Services (Izabel Garcia of counsel) for defendant.

Esther M. Morgenstern, J.

Motion

The defendant, Malik Williams, moved by Notice of Motion, dated September 29, 2021, seeking the following relief:

1) An order pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (C.P.L.) §§ 30.30(1)(b) and 170.30(1)(e) dismissing the accusatory instrument in the above-captioned case due to a denial of the right to a speedy trial for:

a) lack of proper service of the Certificate of Compliance (COC) and

b) failure to disclose Police Disciplinary Records and Body-worn Camera (BWC) Audit Trails prior to certifying compliance; and

2) Granting such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The defendant is represented by Izabel Garcia, Esq. of Brooklyn Defender Services (BDS).

On October 28, 2021, Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Hannan Seirafi filed an Affirmation in Opposition to the defendant's Notice of Motion to dismiss.

Procedural History

On March 7, 2021, the defendant was arrested (Docket # CR-006223-21KN) and charged with the following crimes alleged to have taken place on March 7, 2021:

Assault in the Third Degree [PL § 120.00(1)];

Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation [PL 121.11(A)];

Endangering the Welfare of a Child [PL 260.10(1)];

Attempted Assault in Third Degree [PL § 110/120.00(1)];

Menacing in the Third Degree [PL§ 120.15];

Harassment in the Second Degree [PL § 240.26(1)].

On March 8, 2021, the defendant was arraigned before the Hon. Leigh K. Cheng who issued a TOP in favor of E.M. (hereinafter "the CW") and J.W. (the parties’ son), which was in effect until August 31, 2021 and adjourned the case to April 9, 2021 in DV-1C for conversion and for the filing of the COC.

On March 9, 2021, the People claim to have served and filed initial discovery with defense counsel and the court electronically although this could not be confirmed via the Electronic Document Delivery Service (EDDS).

On March 10, 2021, the People electronically served a Superseding Information (SSI) on defense counsel and filed it with the court.

On April 9, 2021, the defendant appeared in Part DV-1C with counsel. The case was adjourned to May 7, 2021 for the filing of the COC.

On April 20, 2021, the defendant's criminal case was transferred to IDV2 (Docket # 20038V-2021) and adjourned to April 27, 2021.

On April 21, 2021, the defendant appeared in Part DV-2 with counsel. The People claim to have served and filed additional discovery, although this Court has no copy of said discovery in the court file.

On April 27, 2021, the defendant appeared virtually in IDV2 with counsel. The People stated that the corroborating affidavit was served and filed on March 10, 2021. The Court extended the TOP and adjourned the case to June 10, 2021 for the filing of the COC.

On June 3, 2021, the People served the COC and Statement of Readiness (SOR) via e-mail to defense counsel and filed a courtesy copy with the Court.

On June 10, 2021, the defendant appeared virtually in IDV2 with counsel. During the appearance, the People stated that the COC and SOR was uploaded to EDDS and was served on defense counsel and filed with the Court on June 3, 2021. The Court inquired as to whether the defendant would be challenging the People's COC and gave the defendant three weeks to file any opposition to the COC. The TOP was extended to the adjourn date of August 9, 2021.

On August 9, 2021, the defendant appeared virtually in IDV2 with counsel. The Court extended the TOP and adjourned the case for a Huntley hearing and Trial to September 30, 2021 for an in-person appearance.

On September 29, 2021, the defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss.

On September 30, 2021, the defendant and counsel appeared in IDV2 in-person and the Court commenced the Huntley hearing. The Court extended the TOP and adjourned the matter to October 4, 2021 to continue the hearing and for the People's response to defendant's motion.

On October 4, 2021, the case was administratively adjourned, and the TOP was extended to October 7, 2021.

On October 7, 2021, the case was administratively adjourned, and the TOP was extended to October 19, 2021.

On October 19, 2021, the defendant appeared virtually in IDV2. The People were ordered to serve and file opposition papers to the defendant's motion no later than October 28, 2021. The Court extended the TOP, and the case was adjourned to November 10, 2021 for a decision on defendant's motion and for the continued Huntley hearing.

On October 28, 2021, the People served and filed a Supplemental COC.

Speedy Trial Law

C.P.L. § 30.30 "was enacted to serve the narrow purpose of insuring prompt prosecutorial readiness for trial, and its provisions must be interpreted accordingly" ( People v. Sinistaj , 67 N.Y.2d 236, 239, 501 N.Y.S.2d 793, 492 N.E.2d 1209 [1986] ; see People v. Price , 14 N.Y.3d 61, 64, 896 N.Y.S.2d 719, 923 N.E.2d 1107 [2010] ["the dominant legislative intent informing C.P.L. § 30.30 ... (is) to discourage prosecutorial inaction"]). C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(a) requires the People to be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action in which a felony is charged" and section § 30.30(1)(b) requires that the People be ready within 90 days in misdemeanor cases ( Price, supra ).

"The failure to declare readiness within the statutory time limit will result in dismissal of the prosecution, unless the People can demonstrate that certain time periods should be excluded" ( People v. Price, supra ). Once a defendant sufficiently alleges that the People were not ready within the statutory period, "the People [have] the burden of showing their entitlement to a statutory exclusion" ( People v. Luperon , 85 N.Y.2d 71, 81, 623 N.Y.S.2d 735, 647 N.E.2d 1243 [1995] ; see People v. Santos , 68 N.Y.2d 859, 861, 508 N.Y.S.2d 411, 501 N.E.2d 19 [1986] ).

On January 1, 2020, C.P.L. § 240 was replaced by C.P.L. § 245. Notably, C.P.L. § 245.50 (3) requires the People to file a Certificate of Compliance [COC] when they have fully provided the automatic discovery ( C.P.L. 245.30 [1] ). Until the People file a COC, they cannot be deemed ready for trial. ( People v. Ramirez-Correa , 71 Misc. 3d 570, 142 N.Y.S.3d 783 [N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2021] ). In brief, "[w]hat constitutes "trial ready" as of January 1, 2020 is not the same as when the People announced ready in 2019" ( People v. Lobato , 66 Misc. 3d 1230(A), 4, 2020 WL 1071377 [N.Y.Crim.Ct. 2020] ).

C.P.L. § 30.30 was also amended to incorporate this change, and currently states that "any statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of section 245.20" ( C.P.L. § 30.30 [5] ). Once the COC is filed by the People, the defense may contest its validity on the record (id.).

In the case at bar, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint on March 8, 2021. The day of the arraignment is excluded from any speedy trial calculation (See People v. Stiles , 70 N.Y.2d 765, 520 N.Y.S.2d 745, 514 N.E.2d 1368 (1987) ). Thus, the People had ninety (90) from March 9, 2021 to state "ready for trial" pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30 minus any relevant exclusions.

C.P.L. § 30.30(1) Analysis

March 9, 2021 through April 9, 2021 (31 days charged to the People)

The defendant was arraigned on March 8, 2021 and the People stated not ready. The case was adjourned to April 9, 2021 in DV-1.

On April 9, 2021, the People failed to file a COC and were thus not ready for trial pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30. The case was adjourned to May 7, 2021 in DV-1 for the filing of the COC. The case was then transferred and adjourned to April 27, 2021 in IDV2.

Thus, thirty-one (31) days are chargeable to the People.

April 9, 2021 through April 27, 2021 (18 days charged to the People)

On April 27, 2021, the People failed to file a COC and were thus not ready for trial pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30. The case was adjourned to June 10, 2021 for the filing of the COC.

Thus, eighteen (18) days are chargeable to the People.

April 27, 2021 through June 3, 2021 (37 days chargeable to the People)

It is undisputed that the People filed a COC, SOR and Notice/Disclosure Form on June 3, 2021 with the Court via e-mail. The Court must now determine whether the COC was properly served upon the defendant and whether the People fulfilled their discovery obligations prior to filing the COC.

If valid, the People's COC and SOR would stop the C.P.L. § 30.30 clock and thirty-seven (37) days would be chargeable to the People, for a total of eighty-six (86) days chargeable. If the People failed to provide the necessary discovery prior to serving and filing the COC, the People would have exceeded their C.P.L. § 30.30 speedy trial time and the case would be dismissed on 30.30 grounds.

Service of the COC

The defendant concedes that the COC, SOR and a Notice/Disclosure forms were filed by the People with the Court and through the Electronic Document Delivery Service (EDDS) on June 3, 2021. However the defendant argues that the COC is nonetheless invalid because his attorney was not properly served with the COC and SOR via their service email address as demanded by the BDS office. The defendant contends that the COC was served on his attorney's work e-mail address (igarcia@bds.org) at BDS, as well as IDV@BDS.org, instead of the e-mail address designated by BDS to receive service from the Kings County District Attorney's Office (KCDA) (service@bds.org).

The defendant contends that BDS and the KCDA mutually agreed to accept electronic service beginning on April 20, 2020, which was later reduced to writing (Exhibit A to defendant's motion). The letter, signed by Nancy Hoppock, Chief Assistant District Attorney of Kings Count and Lisa Schreibersdorf, Executive...