People v Flores
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 10, 2018
Supreme Court, Bronx County
People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
Dayshawn Flores, Defendant.
00848-2017
Plaintiff- ADA Christine Scaccia
Defendant- Martin B. Goldberg, Esq.
Armando Montano, J.
On April 7, 2017, the defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury of Bronx County and charged with Murder in the Second Degree, and other related charges.
Defendant now moves for an Order precluding the District Attorney from introducing "evidence of any fact contained in the police reports, forensic reports or other materials comprising discovery due to their failure to provide said materials to defense". The motion is decided as follows:
On June 2, 2017, defense counsel filed an Omnibus motion and a Bill of Particulars requesting discovery from the People pursuant to CPL §240.20. Even though the People filed a response to the Omnibus motion, the People did not respond to the defendant's request for a Bill of Particulars and Demand for Discovery. Furthermore, a review of the Court's file reveals that on January 4, 2018, defense counsel, Martin B. Goldberg, stated on the record that the People had not yet provided him with discovery despite the repeated requests for discovery. The matter was then adjourned to February 8, 2018, for discovery. On February 8, 2018, the People once again failed to provide discovery. The Court provided the People with yet another opportunity to provide discovery. Specifically, the Court ordered that discovery be provided to defense counsel on or before March 8, 2018, and marked it final against the People. The Court further directed defense counsel to file a motion to preclude in the event that the People failed to provide the requested discovery. Because the People failed to do so, defense counsel filed the instant motion to preclude evidence on March 8, 2018. On the return date, April 9, 2018, the People failed to submit a response to defendant's motion to preclude. Thus, this Court precluded the People from submitting a response to the instant motion.
Upon a review of the motion papers and the Court's file, this Court grants defendant's motion to preclude evidence only to the extent that the People are hereby ordered to respond to the defendant's Bill of Particulars and Demand for Discovery within thirty (30) days of this Decision and Order. In the event that the People shall fail to adequately respond to [*2]defense counsel's Bill of Particulars and Demand for Discovery pursuant to this Order, the defendant may renew the instant motion to preclude and the Court will then consider whether the severe sanction of preclusion is the proper remedy. [See CPL 240.70(1); see also People v Jenkins, 98 NY2d 280, 284 (2002).]
The District Attorney is advised to review and comply with the attached Brady order pursuant to the Administrative Order of the Chief Judge. In the event that the Assigned District Attorney ("ADA") continues to ignore defendant's Bill of Particulars and Demand for Discovery, this Court will also review whether the ADA has willfully and deliberately violated the attached Brady Order.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: May 10, 2018
Bronx, New York
____________________________
Armando Montano, J.S.C.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
