People v Barnett
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 20, 2020
Supreme Court, New York County
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
James Barnett, Defendant.
4227/19
For the People: A.D.A. Lauren DiGiovanni
For the Defense: New York County Defender Services by Rebecca Phipps, Esq.
Steven M. Statsinger, J.
This case presents a novel question under the new discovery protocols, codified in Criminal Procedure Law (hereinafter "C.P.L.") Article 245, as to the effect of a Certificate of Compliance (hereinafter "C.O.C."), see C.P.L. § 245.50(1), filed by the People in a case where discovery is, at least arguably, incomplete, but the People have not yet answered ready for trial. Specifically, defendant has moved for an Order deeming such a C.O.C. invalid. That motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
I. Factual Background
On February 4, 2020, defendant was arraigned on an indictment charging him with one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, Penal Law (hereafter "P.L.") § 220.43(1), two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, P.L. § 220.16(1), one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, P.L. § 220.09(1), and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, P.L. § 220.03.[FN1] Defendant entered a plea of not guilty; the Court released him on his own recognizance and set a motion schedule. The People had by then already filed a C.O.C., dated January 24, 2020. At arraignment, the People served on the defense a Notice and Disclosure Form ("N.D.F."), which detailed the discovery materials that had been provided to the defense. As of this writing, the People have not answered ready for trial.
Defendant filed his omnibus motion on June 29, 2020,[FN2] which, as pertinent here, sought an Order deeming the January 24, 2020, C.O.C. invalid. Defendant argued that: (1) the [*2]discovery materials that the People provided contained redactions more extensive than those permitted by C.P.L. § 240.20(1), but the People had not obtained a protective order, and; (2) certain discoverable materials remained outstanding. The Court reserved decision and directed the People to provide the Court with additional information. The People have done so, and the matter is now ripe for decision.
II. Legal Discussion
Defendant's motion is moot, even if the C.O.C. is incomplete, due to the interaction between the new discovery rules and C.P.L. § 30.30.
Section 245.20(1) of the C.P.L., part of the recent discovery reform legislation, prescribes a long list of materials that the People are obligated to disclose to the defendant. This section is an expanded version of the predecessor statute, C.P.L. § 240.20, which prescribed a considerably shorter list of materials. The new legislation also imposes strict time periods within which discovery must be provided, C.P.L. § 245.10(1), and the requirement that the People file a C.O.C. when they "ha[ve] provided the discovery required by" C.P.L. § 245.20(1), except for materials that have either been lost or destroyed or materials that are the subject of a protective order. See, generally, C.P.L. § 245.50(1).
The C.O.C. serves only one practical purpose: It is a necessary prerequisite to a valid statement of readiness under C.P.L. § 30.30. Unless the court makes an "individualized finding of special circumstances" the People "shall not be deemed ready for trial until [they have] filed a proper certificate [of compliance] pursuant to" C.P.L. § 245.50(1). C.P.L. § 245.50(3). See also CPL § 30.30(1)(a) (in a felony case, the People must be "ready for trial" within "six months of the commencement of the criminal action"). The People can be deemed ready for trial upon filing a C.O.C. in a case where otherwise discoverable materials have been lost or destroyed, or are otherwise unavailable, although C.P.L. § 245.50(3) contains a reminder that sanctions for a discovery violation might be available in such cases.
This case, however, turns only on the interaction between the C.O.C. requirement of C.P.L. § 245.50(1) and the ordinary C.P.L. § 30.30 rules, which, on this question, the Legislature did not change. Under those rules, for two reasons, defendant's motion is moot.
The first reason is that the People have not yet answered ready for trial. A defective or incomplete C.O.C. might well result in a judicial finding that a statement of readiness is illusory. Indeed, as far as this Court can discern, that could be the only legal effect of declaring a C.O.C. to be invalid. This means that here, since the People have not yet answered ready for trial, there could be no legal consequence at all to the Court's invalidating the C.O.C. This, then, moots the defendant's request for such a declaration; determining the issue would not directly affect any legal right of either party. Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-14 (1980) (courts are "forbid[den]" from "pass[ing] on academic, hypothetical, moot, or otherwise abstract questions"). See, e.g., People v. Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 182 (1996) (step one of Batson inquiry becomes moot once the court has ruled on steps two and three).
It is hardly surprising, then, that courts have so far, in very large part, only ruled on the validity of a C.O.C. in cases where the People have also answered ready for trial. E.g., People v. Nelson, 67 Misc 3d 313 (Franklin County Ct. 2020); People v. Askin, __ Misc 3d ___, 124 N.Y.S.3d 133 (Nassau County Ct. 2020). In these cases, the question whether the C.O.C. was valid as a necessary prerequisite to a valid statement of readiness was not "academic, hypothetical, [or] moot." But here, absent a statement of readiness, it is.
There is a second, closely related, reason that the question here is moot. This case is [*3]currently in the midst of motion practice and has been since the defendant's arraignment in Supreme Court. See C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a) (excluding the delay occasioned by "pre-trial motions" from "the time within which the People must be ready for trial"). This means that even if the People had filed a statement of readiness in this case, that statement would not have stopped the speedy trial clock, as the clock is already stopped. And, again, since the only purpose of invalidating the C.O.C. would be to invalidate a statement of readiness, and in this case, a statement of readiness would not have stopped the speedy trial clock, the validity of the C.O.C. is again moot.
Accordingly, since the interaction between the speedy trial rules and the C.O.C. requirement moots the defendant's request, the motion is denied as moot.
III. Conclusion
For the above reasons, defendant's motion to have the C.O.C declared invalid is denied.
This opinion constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Date: July 20, 2020
New York, New York
HON. STEVEN M. STATSINGER
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Footnotes
Footnote 1:The indictment also named a co-defendant, who is not a party to this litigation.
Footnote 2:There were two long administrative adjournments in the interim that were necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.
