You are here: / / DEFENDANT MADE A DISCOVERY DEMAND FOR “LINE OF DUTY” DOCUMENTS...
, ,

DEFENDANT MADE A DISCOVERY DEMAND FOR “LINE OF DUTY” DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE DEFENSE; THE PEOPLE DID NOT ADDRESS THE DEMAND; ON APPEAL THE PEOPLE ARGUED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THERE WERE NO SUCH DOCUMENTS; BY FAILING TO ADDRESS THE DEMAND IN THE MOTION COURT, THE PEOPLE WERE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEDED THE EXISTENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS; THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS THEREFORE ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the certificate of compliance (COC) with the People’s discovery obligations was illusory and defendant’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds should have been granted:

Officer Soto testified before the grand jury that the defendant was sitting in a parked car when the plainclothes officers approached him, that Officer Soto did not identify himself as a police officer, that he could not recall whether Officer Cruz identified himself as a police officer, that a struggle ensued over some suspected marijuana in the defendant’s hand, and that the defendant drove away, causing injury to each officer. The indicted charges included aggravated assault upon a police officer and assault in the second degree, alleging, among other things, that the defendant caused serious physical injury to Officer Soto and physical injury to Officer Cruz. * * *

The defendant … identified the failure to disclose any “line of duty” paperwork, despite the defendant’s request for the same, and the facts that both officers were out “line of duty” for a period of time due to their injuries and Officer Soto ultimately retired due to his injuries. The defendant asserted that the “line of duty” paperwork would include documents relating to the independent medical examinations by the New York City Police Department District Surgeon used to certify that the officers were, in fact, injured and unable to return to full duty, as well as written statements by the officers regarding the manner in which their injuries occurred. * * *

On appeal, the People assert that there is no indication that any “line of duty” paperwork exists. In opposition to the defendant’s motion, however, the People did not refute the defendant’s assertion that the paperwork existed. “Normally what is not disputed is deemed to be conceded” … . Moreover, as the People bear the burden of establishing that they did, in fact, exercise due diligence and make reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery prior to filing the COC, it was incumbent on the People to address the defendant’s assertion regarding the “line of duty” paperwork in opposing his motion. People v Serrano, 2025 NY Slip Op 00338, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: If the People ignore a defendant’s discovery demand for relevant documents, they will be deemed to have acknowledged that the documents exist rendering the COC illusory.

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOSPITAL MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT PROVIDED BY A NON-EMPLOYEE IN THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM (SECOND DEPT).
Petitioner, Who Was Not a Biological or Adoptive Parent of the Child, Was Adjudicated a Parent in a Support Proceeding Brought by the Respondent—Under the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, Petitioner Was Deemed a Parent in a Subsequent Custody/Visitation Proceeding Brought by the Petitioner
Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located in the Parking Lot) Into the Building’s Septic System Was Not Subject to the “Parking Lot” Exclusion from Coverage—The Claim Did Not Arise from the “Ownership, Maintenance or Use” of the Parking Lot, But Rather Arose from the “Operations Necessary or Incidental” to the Insured Building
STATEMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S OUT-OF-STATE EXPERT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; CPLR 2106 REQUIRES A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM A DENTIST LICENSED IN ANOTHER STATE (SECOND DEPT).
THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMOLITION-WORK-INJURY; THE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).
STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TAX LIEN FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE NOTICE TO REDEEM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log Book

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED ON... HERE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S ESTATE BROUGHT...