At our firm, we are committed to holding prosecutors accountable to the legal standards that protect our clients’ rights. One recent example from Suffolk County District Court illustrates how critical these protections are—and how we use them to secure just outcomes.
In this case, our client was charged with a class A misdemeanor: Criminal Obstruction of Breathing. From the start, we believed that the prosecution’s delay in complying with its discovery obligations rendered its certificate of readiness defective under New York’s speedy trial statute, Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30.
The Legal Framework: CPL 30.30 and Discovery Compliance
Under CPL 30.30(1)(b), the prosecution must be ready for trial within 90 days in a misdemeanor case where at least one charge is punishable by more than three months in jail. However, a “statement of readiness” is only valid if the People have met their discovery obligations under CPL Article 245.
Here, the prosecution filed a Certificate of Compliance (COC) and Statement of Readiness (SOR) on July 3, 2024. We argued that this filing was illusory because key discovery materials—including photographs taken by the complaining witness—were not turned over until March 13, 2025, more than eight months later.
What the Court Found
Hon. Mary Kate Mullen issued a detailed decision on May 21, 2025, granting our motion to dismiss. The Court found that:
- The prosecution had possession, custody, and control of four photographs sent by the complainant to the District Attorney’s Domestic Violence Unit as early as April 11, 2024.
- Despite having multiple follow-up conversations with the complainant, the People failed to confirm receipt or production of these photographs before filing their initial COC and SOR.
- The omission was not malicious, but it clearly did not meet the “good faith and due diligence” standard required by CPL 245.50 and relevant case law (People v. Bay, People v. Bruni).
- As a result, the July 3, 2024 readiness filing was deemed invalid.
Speedy Trial Clock Exceeded
With the prosecution’s July filing rendered ineffective, the speedy trial clock continued to run until March 13, 2025. After accounting for excludable periods (where the defense requested adjournments), the Court determined that the People had used 93 days—three days over the statutory limit.
Accordingly, Judge Mullen granted our motion to dismiss the case under CPL §§ 30.30(1)(b) and 170.30(1)(e).
Why This Case Matters
This result underscores the importance of rigorous defense work and the protections afforded by New York’s discovery and speedy trial laws. Prosecutors are not permitted to announce readiness unless they’ve disclosed all discoverable materials in their possession. When they fail to do so, the consequences are clear: dismissal.
While every case is unique and prior outcomes do not guarantee future results, this case is a strong example of how procedural vigilance can make the difference between a conviction and a dismissal.
If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Suffolk County or elsewhere in New York, contact our office today for a confidential consultation. We are here to protect your rights—every step of the way.