Opinion
Cr-028266-19qn
02-24-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. John H. BAUTISTA, Defendant.
Samantha Schlich, Assistant District Attorney, for the People Gerard Deenihan, The Legal Aid Society, for the Defendant
Samantha Schlich, Assistant District Attorney, for the People
Gerard Deenihan, The Legal Aid Society, for the Defendant
Karen Gopee, J.
Summary of the Court's Decision
The People's motion for modification/extension of the C.P.L. § 245.10 timing provisions pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.70(2) is DENIED. The defendant is charged with Attempted Murder in the Second Degree, P.L. § 110/125.25(1), Burglary in the First Degree, P.L. § 140.30(1), Burglary in the Second Degree, P.L. § 140.25(2), Assault in the Second Degree, P.L. § 120.05(2), and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, P.L. § 265.01(2), for entering 28-31 45th Street, apt 2 in Queens, NY and stabbing Rosario Imundi in the back with a knife on September 8TH, 2019.
By written motion dated February 18TH, 2020, the People seek a C.P.L. § 245.70(2) good cause modification and extension of their fifteen-day discovery compliance requirement pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.10.
The People assert, "in spite of diligent efforts" there remains "undisclosed" and "yet to be obtained" discovery materials and argue: 1) that they have disclosed "a majority" of the discoverable material and provide a 3 page, 21 item list of material provided to date; 2) that they need time to obtain and/or review and redact any additional information; 3) That the unobtained discovery is in the possession of "city, state, federal and private entities which are currently fielding requests for discoverable information from prosecutors throughout the city and state"; and, 4) that the assigned Prosecutor has a caseload of 52 felonies and has been "endeavoring," along with support staff, to "come into compliance" with C.P.L. §§ 245.10 and 245.20 since January 1, 2020.
C.P.L. § 245.10(1)(a) provides that the People must "perform its initial discovery obligations not later than fifteen calendar days after the defendant's arraignment" and allows for a stay, up to an additional thirty calendar days, "if the materials are "exceptionally voluminous or despite diligent, good faith efforts" the material is not in the actual possession of the prosecution. C.P.L. § 245.70(2) permits a court to "alter the time periods for discovery imposed by" Article 245 "upon a showing of good cause."
Here, the People have failed to show good cause warranting modification, extension or deferment of the discovery time period. The People have not specified any of the items that remain outstanding, what agency or agencies are in possession of the outstanding materials, if and when they requested the items, or any efforts made to obtain them. Thus, the People's reliance on People v. Adams , Slip Op. 20041, 66 Misc.3d 918, 119 N.Y.S.3d 831 (Morris, J.) (Sup. Ct., Qns. Co., decided February 7, 2020) is misguided since in that matter, the People disclosed all of the 200 Rikers phone calls to the defendant but sought an extension to narrow down which of the phone calls would be introduced by the People at trial. Whereas here, the People are blanketly requesting an extension, and asserting there is outstanding material, without any specifics as to what material or how much, who has that material, when they expect to receive it or why they haven't received it to date.
Additionally, they filed the instant motion on February 18TH, 2020—48 days since C.P.L. § 245 became effective and more than five months since the defendant's criminal court arraignment—untimely and without any explanation as to the delay. See People v. Appling , Ind. No. 03763-2019 (Sciarrino, Jr., J.) (Sup. Ct., Kings Co., decided January 6, 2020) (court ruled that the People must specify what materials are "voluminous" or what efforts were taken to obtain the outstanding material.)
Furthermore, while the People aver that some of the information contained in the documents may qualify for a protective order, they do not move for a protective order of documents currently in their possession, but merely speculate as to what may be contained within undisclosed and possibly unreceived documents.
Accordingly, the People's motion seeking an extension, modification and/or deferment of the C.P.L. § 245.10 discovery time period pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.70(2) is DENIED .
This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.