2025 NY Slip Op 51352(U)
Utica City Court2025Background
- Defendant Sarah B. Duross was charged (Dec 2024) with operating a motor vehicle with BAC ≥ .08, DWI, and an equipment (safety glass) violation; arraigned Jan 9, 2025.
- People filed an initial Certificate of Compliance (CoC) and Statement of Readiness Mar 31, 2025; defense filed an omnibus motion Apr 15, 2025 raising discovery defects.
- On June 9, 2025 the court invalidated the initial CoC as illusory, ordered multiple hearings (Dunaway/Mapp, Huntley, Sandoval/Ventimiglia), and denied some defense requests.
- People filed a Supplemental CoC June 30, 2025; defense moved to invalidate the Supplemental CoC, arguing key discovery remained missing (light/tint meter and calibration data, portable breath screen make/calibration, Drager Alcotest error‑logger data, body‑worn camera audit logs, officer disciplinary records).
- Court applied the People’s burden to show diligent efforts to locate/produce automatic discovery (People v. Bay) and considered newly codified CPL § 245.50(5) factors concerning totality of efforts and reasons for belated disclosure.
- Court found the People produced substantial discovery shortly after the initial ruling, credibly explained missing items (some did not exist), concluded delays were not in bad faith or prejudicial, and denied the defense’s motion to invalidate the Supplemental CoC; in‑person pretrial set for Aug 29, 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Supplemental Certificate of Compliance (due diligence) | People: exercised diligent efforts to locate and produce discovery; produced substantial material after court order | Duross: supplemental CoC is illusory because key items remained undisclosed | Court: Supplemental CoC valid—People showed good faith and due diligence under Bay and CPL §245.50(5) totality analysis |
| Existence/production of specific technical records (error‑logger, calibration) | People: searched for error‑logger/calibration data; some records do not exist | Duross: absence of records indicates noncompliance and supports invalidation | Court: People credibly demonstrated efforts to obtain those items and represented some records do not exist; failure to produce non‑existent records not fatal |
| Prejudice from belated disclosures | People: disclosures were prompt after deficiency was identified and not prejudicial | Duross: belated/omitted items impeded investigation and preparation | Court: Defense failed to show prejudice; delays were minor/remedied and not materially impairing |
| Effect of initial CoC invalidation on Supplemental CoC | People: Supplemental CoC was filed after corrective efforts and should stand | Duross: prior invalidation shows pattern warranting invalidation of supplemental filing | Court: Prior invalidation did not mandate invalidating supplemental CoC; totality of efforts supports validity |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bay, 41 N.Y.3d 200 (2023) (establishes People’s burden to show diligent efforts to locate and disclose automatic discovery)
- People v. Macaluso, 230 A.D.3d 1158 (2d Dept. 2024) (belated, minimal, voluntary disclosures made in good faith do not necessarily invalidate a CoC)
- People v. Williams, 224 A.D.3d 998 (3d Dept. 2024) (delays explained and not due to bad faith can support validity of disclosure practices)
- People v. Perez, 73 Misc.3d 171 (Queens Cnty. Sup. Ct. 2021) (minor oversights or delayed discovery of existence do not invalidate a CoC made in good faith)