You are here: / / THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING...
, ,

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING REQUESTED DISCOVERY MATERIALS; THE INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE TIME WHEN THE OMNIBUS MOTIONS WERE UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, affirmed the dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds. The dissenting justices agreed that the certificate of compliance was invalid, but argued the time that the defense omnibus motions were under consideration should not have been charged to the People:

… [T]he People contend that the court erred in determining that they violated their initial discovery obligations by failing to disclose the police report and body-worn camera footage relating to a welfare check of two of defendant’s children conducted by police officers two days after the alleged assault, inasmuch as they acted in good faith and with due diligence in an attempt to recover the report and footage. We reject that contention. * * *

… [D]espite being aware of the welfare check, which directly related to an issue upon which they presented testimony at the grand jury proceeding, the People failed to undertake the requisite efforts to ascertain the existence of, and obtain, the police report and body-worn camera footage, sending only a single letter to the police department that had conducted the welfare check and failing to follow up. We conclude under the circumstances presented here that the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that they exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the initial COC [certificate of compliance] and, thus, the court properly determined that the initial COC was improper and struck the statement of readiness as illusory … .

From the dissent:

… [W]e agree with the majority’s conclusion that the certificate of compliance in this case was invalid … , we cannot agree with the majority’s further conclusion that the People could be charged with more than six months of speedy trial time while defendant’s omnibus motion remained pending. In our view, it cannot be disputed that the omnibus motion remained pending before Supreme Court, i.e., “under consideration” (CPL 30.30 [4] [a]), at least in part, during the relevant time frame inasmuch as the portion of the motion seeking to compel production of certain materials pertaining to a welfare check … was neither decided by the court nor withdrawn by defendant before defendant moved to dismiss the indictment. Because we conclude that defendant’s omnibus motion remained pending before the court until defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds, we further conclude that all of the time that elapsed during that period was excludable, and that the People could not be charged with more than six months of statutory speedy trial time as a result … . People v Ernst, 2025 NY Slip Op 04329, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the meaning of “due diligence” in the context of the People’s response to discovery demands.

 

You might also like
ELIMINATION OF A POSITION WAS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DISMISSAL UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT, ALTHOUGH RETRENCHMENT IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT WAS DEEMED ARBITRABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
Decision Offers a Rare, Detailed Discussion of the Probable-Cause Analysis of a Search Warrant Application Which Included Hearsay from Confidential Informants (Analyzed Under the Aguilar-Spinelli Reliability Tests), Controlled Buys and Surveillance
Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Injury from Colliding With a Window Near the Basketball Court
DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DISMISSAL.
OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RULING ON WHETHER THE PEOPLE COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS RE: LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCIPLINARY RECORDS (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK LIFTING A HEAVY METAL STRUCTURE A FEW INCHES TO ALLOW ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE PUT DOWN UNDERNEATH IT; THE INJURY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SHARING OF CONTINGENCY FEES FOR CASES RETAINED BY AN ATTORNEY WHO LEAVES THE FIRM, DID NOT VIOLATE ETHICS RULES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

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

THE JUDGE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER FATHER’S ARGUMENTS OPPOSING THE... THE PROSECUTOR RECOMMENDED A LEVEL ONE RISK ASSESSMENT BUT THE JUDGE ASSESSED...