Opinion
Indictment No. 70371-21/001
10-31-2022
The People of the State of New York, v. Robert J. Williams, Defendant.
Robert R. Zickl, Esq., Assistant District Attorney for the People Frederick Rarick, Esq., Attorney for the Defendant
Unpublished Opinion
Robert R. Zickl, Esq., Assistant District Attorney for the People
Frederick Rarick, Esq., Attorney for the Defendant
Melissa Lightcap Cianfrini, J.
On October 26, 2022, the Defendant Robert J. Williams (hereinafter, "the Defendant"), through his counsel, at trial made an oral motion to dismiss the above-entitled action on CPL § 30.30 grounds, which was followed by a written motion filed on October 27, 2022 that further asserted that the "People's Certificates of Compliance and the People's statement of readiness (sic) [were] illusory" on two bases. First, the People's Supplemental Certificates of Compliance failed to comply with CPL § 245.50(1)(a) in that they did not set forth the basis for the delayed disclosure. Second, the People allegedly failed to comply with CPL § 250.20(1)(g) by timely providing copies of the recordings of the complainant's various 911 calls regarding the alleged incident.
The two Supplemental Certificates of Compliance dated February 17, 2022 and August 25, 2021 were appended to the Affirmation in Support of Frederick M. Rarick, Esq. sworn to on October 27, 2022 as Exhibits "B" and "C" respectively.
Although the Court inquired as to whether the People wanted time to file a written response to the Defendant's written motion, the People declined and preferred to proceed with oral arguments on the motion whereby the People further indicated that the facts were not in dispute and the issue pending before the Court was purely legal. Oral arguments were held on the Defendant's motion on October 27, 2022 immediately before the commencement of jury selection and outside the presence of the jury. This Court reserved decision on the issues raised, which are determined herewith.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2021, the Defendant was indicted for two counts each of Aggravated Cruelty to Animals, contrary to Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-1(a), and Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree, contrary to Penal Law § 145.00(1). On or about July 20, 2021, the People mailed to the Defendant, as he was unrepresented by counsel at that time, a Certificate of Compliance ("CoC") and what would purport to be a Statement of Readiness for Trial. The Defendant was ultimately arraigned with counsel on August 24, 2021 before the Hon. Charles N. Zambito and the People re-declared its readiness for trial on the record. Thereafter, this Court received the People's [Supplemental] Certificate of Compliance dated August 25, 2021, which was received by this Court on August 27, 2021 (hereinafter "1st Supp. CoC") and Supplemental Certificates of Compliance dated February 17, 2022 and October 26, 2022, which were received by this Court on February 18, 2022 and October 26, 2022 respectively. Please see footnote No. 2 for clarification regarding the titles of the People's Certificates of Compliance.
On August 8, 2022, this Court initially scheduled a jury trial with jury selection to commence on October 25, 2022. For reasons unrelated to the determination of this motion and with the consent of the defense, on October 21, 2022 this Court adjourned jury selection to October 26, 2022. On October 25, 2022, the defense contacted the People to review copies of the 911 call recordings, which were provided by the People within approximately ½ hour of the request. On October 26, 2022, the defense requested an adjournment of trial to review those recordings, which the Court granted over the People's objection.
MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPL § 30.30
As a threshold matter, the Defendant argued, in part, that the People's statement of readiness for trial was illusory thereby violating the Defendant's right to a speedy trial due to the untimely disclosure of the 911 call recordings pursuant to the CPL §§ 245.20(1) and (1)(g). The People argued that the disclosure of the existence of the 911 call recordings was made to the Defendant and that the People's declaration of readiness for trial was not "illusory". In support of their argument, the People stated that their "Certificate of Compliance" dated August 25, 2021 included a document in a.pdf format entitled "CFS Report" during the discovery process. Contained within that document was a call log from January 15, 2021, which indicated that several 911 calls were placed and included a brief description of each call. The CFS report has been attached hereto as Court Exhibit 1.
Although the August 25, 2021 certificate was titled "Certificate of Compliance", the first Certificate of Compliance dated July 20, 2021 (hereinafter, "CoC") was mailed to the Defendant as he was unrepresented by counsel on that date. As such, the August 25, 2021 certificate (hereinafter, 1st Supp. CoC") was a supplemental certificate, not the initial Certificate of Compliance.
CFS is an abbreviation for Calls for Service.
Certificate of Compliance: CPL § 245.50; § 30.30(5 )
Unless the court makes an "individualized finding of special circumstances" the People "shall not be deemed ready for trial until they have filed a proper Certificate of Compliance pursuant to CPL § 245.50(1). CPL § 245.50(3). Pursuant to CPL § 245.50(1), after the prosecutor provides all automatic discovery (see CPL § 245.20 [1][a]-[u]), excepting discovery lost or destroyed (see CPL § 245.80 [1][b]) or items subject to a protective order (see CPL § 245.70), the prosecutor shall file and serve a certificate of compliance, which:
"shall state that, after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery.
Accordingly, the sole condition precedent to the prosecutor's ability to file a Certificate of Compliance is the discovery of all material considered automatic discovery per CPL § 245.20(1)(a)-(u). People v. Napolitano, 67 Misc.3d 1241 (A), NY Slip Op. 50802(U) (Sup. Ct., NY, June 11, 2020). As such, a Certificate of Compliance serves only one practical purpose: It is a necessary prerequisite to a valid statement of readiness under CPL § 30.30.
A careful reading of CPL § 245.20(1), provides, in pertinent part as follows:
The prosecution shall disclose to the defendant, and permit the defendant to discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test, 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....
CPL § 245.20(1)(emphasis supplied). The 911 call recordings are considered "automatic discovery" under CPL § 245.20(1)(g). As noted above, the 911 calls were clearly noted within the attached CFS report under the CoC and 1st Supp. CoC. Furthermore, the CoC and the 1st Supp. CoC clearly directed the Defendant to contact a specific paralegal at the District Attorney's Office via email to obtain copies of the Dispatch Center's audio recordings. As such, the People disclosed to the Defendant the existence of the 911 call recordings and provided a means for those recordings to be inspected and/or obtained as required under CPL § 245.20(1). Accordingly, this Court determines that the CoC and any Supplemental CoCs were filed in good faith by the prosecutor and were not illusory in nature for purposes of declaring readiness for trial under CPL § 30.30.
Given that the People timely disclosed and made available for inspection the 911 call recordings in their initial CoC dated July 20, 2021, the Court need not address the Defendant's second issue regarding the People's alleged failure to provide a reason for the filing of Supplemental CoCs under CPL § 245.50(1)(a) in that they did not set forth the basis for the delayed disclosure.
Therefore, the Defendant's motion seeking to invalidate the People's certificates of compliance and their declaration of readiness for trial as illusory is hereby DENIED.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.