DECISION AND ORDER Introduction Andria Perez, hereinafter defendant, moves to invalidate the People’s certificate of compliance (CPL §245.50 (1), and to dismiss on speedy trial grounds (CPL §§170.30[1][e]; 30.30). Defendant asserts, in part, that because written correspondence relating to the extraction of her blood and its preservation for “pick up” between the People and hospital personnel and contact information for witnesses with relevant information to her alleged crimes were withheld by the People, dismissal is warranted. Upon review and consideration of the party submissions, court file, and relevant law, defendant’s motion to deem the People’s certificate of compliance invalid under CPL §245.50 (1), and to dismiss pursuant to CPL §§30.30, and 170.30(1)(e) is granted. The reasons for the Court’s decision are explained below. Procedural Background Defendant was arrested on June 11, 2022, and arraigned on June 12, 2022, on a misdemeanor complaint charging her with Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree (Penal law §120.20), Operating a Motor Vehicle while under the Influence of Alcohol (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192-3), Reckless Driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1212), and Operating a Motor Vehicle while under the influence of Alcohol or Drugs (Vehicle Traffic Law §1192-1). After arraignment, defendant was released on her own recognizance, and the case was adjourned to July 27, 2022, for supporting deposition, and for the People to provide discovery. On July 27, 2022, the People had yet to turn over discovery, did not have a supporting deposition, and were not ready to proceed to trial; the matter was again adjourned for supporting deposition, and for discovery to September 27, 2022. Prior to September 27th, on September 9, 2022, at approximately 7:36 pm, the People served and filed a second accusatory instrument, charging defendant with only the counts of Operating a Motor Vehicle while under the Influence of Alcohol, and Operating a Motor Vehicle while under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs. Together with its second accusatory instrument, the People provided various discovery materials, and served and filed a certificate of compliance (COC), and a certificate of readiness (COR). The People’s COC listed eighth witnesses as people the “prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto…” See People’s COC, Sept. 9, 2022, EDDS. On September 17, 2022, after receiving this material, defense counsel emailed the People with a list of discovery inquiries and requests. Specifically, defendant requested material pursuant to CPL §245.20 (1)(j)(c)(k)(e), including, in pertinent part, “[c]ontact information for civilians with evidence or information,” specifically the eight civilian witnesses, identified by the People in their COC as people the prosecutor knew had information about the case. Defendant also requested “[r]ecords of the disciplinary history for sole testifying witness, arresting officer Wind,” and indicated that the People did not provide the NYPD Central Personnel Index (CPI). In her email, defendant alerted the People to their redaction of multiple discoverable items including the complaint report, and a Motor Vehicle Collision Report (MVCR), without the People applying for a protective order pursuant to CPL §245.70, and requested the medical records for Renee Boyd, a complaining witness involved in a car accident allegedly caused by defendant on the night of defendant’s arrest. See Iannacci Aff., Exh. A (emails between the parties); see also People’s COC, Sept. 9, 2022, EDDS. On September 26, 2022, the People, in an email response, stated that they had no medical records for the complaining witness, that the only names and contact information they received was what was provided on the police accident report, that they were told by the “District Attorney’s LEOW Department that all relevant information contained in the CPI is copied in the LEOW Disclosure Form” and conceded, with regards to the civilian witnesses, that “names and contact information are specified to be disclosed.” See Iannacci Aff., Exh. A. On September 27, 2022, the people announced ready for trial in open court, and the defendant again objected to the People’s withholding of discovery as detailed in his email, and the parties were ordered to diligently confer regarding any discovery disputes. The matter was then adjourned to October 12, 2022, for a discovery compliance conference. On September 28, 2022, the prosecution served on defense counsel, via email, a supplemental certificate of compliance (SCOC), stating that they were disclosing the “Boyd Signed Document” and that “certain information in the People’s possession not relevant to the subject matter has not been disclosed.” With regards to the witness contact information, the supplemental certificate indicated that “[t]he defendant has been provided with adequate contact information pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(c), and other personal contact information has been redacted as not related to the subject matter of the case.” See Korb, Sept. 28, 2022, SCOC, EDDS. The People’s September 28, 2022, SCOC did not detail the basis for the delayed disclosure. On October 12, 2022, the parties were not available for the scheduled discovery compliance conference, and the matter was adjourned to October 31, 2022, for the conference. On October 31, 2022, at a discovery compliance conference held before Judge Freire, defense counsel again reiterated his request for withheld discovery material as detailed in his email of September 17th, 2022, stressing that contact information for the eight witnesses had not been provided. See Iannacci Aff. Exhibit B, pgs. 26-29. The defense again objected to the redaction of information on the complaint report, and Motor Vehicle Collision Report. At the hearing, when the court asked the People about steps taken to retrieve contact information for the civilian witnesses, the People stated that they “reached out to the police officer the AO and asked him if there were any witnesses and contact information and he just referred me to the police accident report.” See Id., p. 7, Ins. 2-8. When Judge Freire asked the People whether the police officer made an affirmative statement that the contact “information doesn’t exist and it’s not in the NYPD possession,” the People stated that, “it was not an affirmative statement…” After not receiving a clear response, the court then instructed the People to clarify the matter with the officer. Id. pg.7, In. 13. Defense counsel, thereafter, argued that he was at a disadvantage because he could not contact the eight witnesses and that the People “have a duty to give us something some way to contact them and in fact they had months to do this, so already the argument is….the statement of readiness was never effective.” Id., pg. 9-10. The Court then ordered the People to correspond with the involved police officers about the missing witness contact information and to provide the unredacted documents to the court for an in-camera inspection. The matter was then adjourned for December 13, 2022, for an update and compliance conference. Before the December 13th court date, on November 4, 2022, the People moved for a protective order to prevent disclosure of information contained in the NYPD CPI and the underlying disciplinary documents for officer John Wind. On November 17, 2002, after a hearing before Judge Gershuny, the People’s motion for the protective order to prevent disclosure of Wind’s disciplinary records, including unsubstantiated claims, was denied. See Iannacci Aff., Exhibit C. On November 22, 2022, five months after defendant’s arrest, the People, for the first time, disclosed additional discovery, including phone numbers for some of the eight civilian witnesses taken by the arresting officer in handwritten notes, and in his possession at the time of People’s filing of the COC, and information that was formerly redacted. The accident report details how the witnesses observed and related details of the accident involving defendant. See Iannacci Aff., Exhibits F, G. The People acknowledged that they later determined that the witness contact material was in the possession of the Police Department before the filing of the COC. See Korb Aff., Exh. D. On December 12, 2022, the People filed another SCOC, stating that they gave consent to the defense to inspect a DMV notice of hearing, interrogation warnings, Motor Vehicle Collision Report, medical treatment of prisoner, property transfer report property clerk invoice, finalized police accident report, and “additional notices.” Again, the People did not detail the basis for the delayed disclosure, nor did they detail the precise nature of the “additional notices.” On the December 13, 2022, defense counsel again objected to the People’s untimely disclosure, and statement of readiness, and informed the court that the police had always been in possession of the contact information for the various witnesses, and that he was just given the complete CPI. Defense counsel requested a motion schedule to challenge the People’s COC, and COR. The court granted a motion schedule and defendant was to file by January 13, 2023; the People were to have its opposition papers filed by January 27, 2023, and defendant’s reply was to be filed by February 3, 2023. Party Submissions Defendant submits, in her motion to dismiss, that prior to the People filing its COC on September 9th, 2022, they failed to comply with CPL §245.20 (1) because they did not provide contact information for eight (8) civilian witnesses pursuant to CPL §245.20(1)(c), and did not provide records of the disciplinary history for sole testifying witness officer John Wind pursuant to CPL §§245.20(1)(k)(ii),(iv),(vii). Defendant also argues that the People impermissibly redacted items and information, including information on the online complaint report, MVCR, and CPI report, without seeking a protective order before their September 9th COC filing. Alerted by the People in their opposing affirmation that there exists a blood preservation letter written by the People, after defendant’s arrest, to the hospital where defendant was treated, and the hospital’s written response, defendant includes this omission as further grounds for invalidating the People’s COC and for dismissal in a reply affirmation dated February 14, 2023. The People, by affirmation dated February 9, 2023, aside from announcing the existence of the blood preservation correspondence for the first time, assert that their statements of readiness are valid, that their COC and COR were filed within ninety days of commencement of the criminal action, and that they filed the COC and COR in good faith, and after exercising due diligence. Regarding the blood preservation letter, the People do not detail the basis for the delay in the disclosure of the documents requesting blood preservation, other than stating, in part, that to their knowledge no blood test was conducted and that “no law enforcement were in possession of the blood.” See Korb Aff. Pg. 21. In response to defendant’s argument regarding the witness contact information, the People assert that they did not possess the contact information for the eighth witnesses listed on the discovery provided to defense prior to September 9, 2022, as they were in possession of the police officer who arrested defendant, and that they had no knowledge of whether these witnesses had evidence or information relevant to the charged crimes at the time of the COC filing. The People further claim that they, in good faith, believed that they were under no obligation to turn over the underlying documents concerning the testifying officer’s disciplinary records, including information concerning unfounded charges because relevant caselaw was inconsistent, and they relied, in good faith, on existing case law. Lastly, the People assert that all of their redactions were proper and were allowed without a protective order. Discussion Pursuant to CPL §30.30 (1), a motion to dismiss must be granted when the prosecution is not ready for trial within the time period set forth by the relevant speedy trial provision. In this case, it is undisputed that the prosecution must be ready for trial within ninety (90) days of the commencement of the action. Although a criminal action commences with the filing of an accusatory instrument, computation for speedy trial purposes commences on the next day (see People v. Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]). Here, all parties do not dispute that the speedy trial clock started on June 12, 2022. Trial readiness means that the prosecutors must have “done all that is required of them to bring the case to a point where it may be tried” (People v. England, 84 NY2d 1, 4 [1994]) and a proper certificate of compliance with the disclosure requirements of CPL §245.20 must have been filed (see CPL §§245.50 [3]; 30.30 [5]; People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc 3d 563, 575 [Crim Ct., Kings County 2020]). Under the “initial discovery” provision of CPL §245.20 (1), soon after the commencement of an action, “[t]he prosecution shall disclose to the defendant and permit the defendant to discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test, all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution’s direction or control, including but not limited to” a non-exhaustive list of materials. The prosecution is to make a diligent and good faith effort to ascertain the existence of the discovery materials, categorized generally by the statute, and make them available to the defense, even if the information is not in the prosecution’s physical possession, except for lost or destroyed material, and materials subject to a protective order (see CPL §§245.20 [2]; 245.70 [1]; 245.80 [1][b]). Unless the court has made “an individualized finding of special circumstances…the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30…until it has [fulfilled its discovery obligations under CPL §§245.20 (1) and filed a proper certificate [of compliance]” (CPL §245.50 [3]). CPL §245.50 (1) sets forth the requirements for a COC as follows: [t]he certificate of compliance shall state that, after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery. It shall also identify the items provided.” When a defendant is not in custody, the People shall perform their initial discovery obligation within thirty-five days of arraignment on a misdemeanor complaint, CPL §245.10 (1)(a)(ii). If a defendant is in custody, the People have twenty days to complete discovery. CPL §245.10 (1)(a)(i). The statute further states that where “additional discovery is subsequently provided prior to trial pursuant to section 245.60 [under the prosecution's continuing duty to disclose material discovered after the initial discovery has been exchanged and a COC filed], a supplemental certificate shall be served identifying the additional material and information provided” (CPL §245.50 [1]). Significantly, in May of 2022, CPL §245.50 (1) was amended to include §245.50 (1-a), which mandates that “[a]ny supplemental certificate of compliance shall detail the basis for the delayed disclosure so that the court may determine whether the delayed disclosure impacts the propriety of the certificate of compliance.” See CPL 245.50 (1-a), as amended by L 2022, ch. 56, §1., effective May 2022; see also People v. Hooks, 181 N.Y.S. 3d 877 (Crim. Ct. Kings County, 2023). While neither invalidating nor validating initial COCs filed with discovery omissions, the new section does mandate that the People provide an explanation for its delay to assist the court in its analysis. This section grants the People an opportunity to establish the original COC’s validity. “There is no impact on the validity of the original certificate if it was filed after exercising due diligence and in good faith pursuant to CPL §245.20 or if the material did not exist at the time the original certificate was filed.” See People v. Higgins, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op 50713(U). If after review of the details provided by the prosecution in its SCOC and its other submissions, the court is satisfied that the original COC was filed in good faith and after diligent efforts despite the discovery that was not exchanged, it may uphold the validity of the original COC, and consider appropriate sanctions pursuant to CPL §245.80, the severity of which may depend on any prejudice the defense suffered as a result of the discovery that was not exchanged prior to the filing of the COC (see CPL §245.50 [1]). If, on the other hand, the court finds that the COC was not filed in good faith or after due diligence, the COC shall be deemed invalid and there is no need to consider the sanctions under CPL §245.80, or to consider if the defense was prejudiced, (see People v. Georgiopoulos, 71 Misc 3d 1215 [A], [Sup Ct, Queens County 2021]. The COC is simply deemed invalid. Thus, “discovery compliance is a question of diligence and reasonableness given the facts of each case: neither a claim of good faith nor an absence of bad faith, standing alone, can exempt the People from these requirements” (People v. Aquino, 72 Misc 3d at 5; People v. Georgiopoulos, 71 Misc 3d 1215[A], [Sup Ct, Queens County 2021] ["good faith and due diligence are the touchstones by which a certificate of compliance must be evaluated"]). The law makes a valid COC a prerequisite to the People’s trial readiness within the meaning of CPL §30.30. Pursuant to CPL §245.50(3), “absent an individualized finding of special circumstances in the instant case by the court before which the charge is pending, the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for the purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate pursuant to subdivision one of this section.” Indeed, “[a]ny statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of section 245.20….” (CPL §30.30[5]). Relevant Categories of Disputed Discovery in the Present Motion A. Names and Contact Information for Persons with Relevant Evidence/Information Here, to meet their discovery obligations, the People were required to disclose “the names and adequate contact information for all persons other than law enforcement personnel whom the prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto…” (CPL §245.20 [1] [c]). CPL §240.20[2] states that “all items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York State of local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution.” CPL §245.55[1] further requires the People to “endeavor to ensure that a flow of information is maintained between the police and other investigative personnel in his or her office sufficient to place within his or her possession or control all material and information pertinent to the defense and the offense or offenses charged.” Considering the specific facts and allegations in this case, the available information shows the People’s lack of due diligence. Indeed, at the October 31, 2022 compliance conference, when the court asked the People about steps taken to retrieve contact information for the civilian witnesses, the People stated that the arresting officer “just referred me to the police accident report.” See Iannacci Aff. Exhibit B, p. 7, In. 2-8. When Judge Freire asked the People whether the police officer made an affirmative statement that the contact “information doesn’t exist and it’s not in the NYPD possession”, the People responded that, “it was not an affirmative statement it was just that I asked him what information do you have for contact — witnesses and contact information and he said —.” After not receiving a clear response, court then instructed the People to clarify the matter with the officer. Id. ps.8-10. Such clarification should have occurred prior to the People’s COC filing, and the People should have diligently acquired the entire police file. In its affirmation in opposition, the People allege that their failure for not including the information initially was that they were unaware that it existed or that the police possessed it. Yet on November 22, 2022, the prosecution, five months after defendant’s arrest, disclosed significant discovery, including phone numbers for civilian witnesses existing at the time of their filing of the COC. See Korb Aff, Exhibit D. The People acknowledge that they later determined the material was always in the possession of the police officer. See Iannacci Aff. Exh. G, (handwritten notes of names and phone numbers of some of the eight witnesses). Importantly, documents disclosed in November of 2022 detail how the witnesses observed, and related details of the accident involving defendant who was originally charged with reckless driving, reckless endangerment, and driving under the influence of alcohol. Timely disclosure of contact information for witnesses to these allegations was crucial for defendant. See CPL§245.20(1)(c). Moreover, the People, in its COC listed these witnesses as persons the “prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto…” See People’s COC, Sept. 9, 2022, HDDS (emphasis added). This information, in the possession of law enforcement before the COC was filed, is deemed to be in the possession of the People. CPL §245.20 [2]. “[A]ll police paperwork is imputed to be in the People’s control and it is the prosecutor’s duty to work with the police to obtain such materials. As a result, it is never sufficient for the People to affirm that an item is not in their physical possession to defeat a certificate of compliance challenge” when the police do in fact possess the information. People v. Georgeiopoulos, 71 Misc 3d 1215[A] (Sup. Ct. Queens County, 2021); see also People v. McLaurin, 38 N.Y.2d 123 (1975) (“a defendant ought not to be penalized because of any inadequacy of internal communication with the law enforcement establishment”). Here, as in People v. Guzman, 75 Misc 3d 132[A], at *1 (2nd Dept. App. Term 2022), the People were plainly on notice that the police accident report and Motor Vehicle Collision reports existed. Indeed, the first complaint alleged that defendant was driving recklessly, and was in a motor vehicle accident involving other drivers, and defense counsel brought the omissions to the People’s attention. The police prepared a MVCR report and accident and damage reports. (Iannacci Aff. Ex. D). As in Guzman, the People here do not provide any persuasive and specific reasons as to why any witness contact information was not provided before they certified that they had exercised due diligence in ascertaining and disclosing all known material from the police. (See Iannacci Aff. Ex. D). Instead, like in Guzman, they disclosed it months later and now simply state that these were “minor” omissions. Applying Guzman, their claimed certificate of “compliance” was therefore invalid. And since “there were no special circumstances presented, the [certificate of readiness] was also invalid.” (Guzman, 75 Misc 3d 132[A], at *3). There is little contained in the People’s opposition affirmation, other than its uncertain communications with the police officer who possessed the contact information and arrested the defendant, to indicate the diligent efforts made to determine, prior to filing the COC, whether discovery in the form of witness contact information existed. The fact that an individual prosecutor may have been unaware of the existence of these items is irrelevant. Upon the defendant’s objection to the COC, the People represented that they had turned over all items of discovery. The Court, considering the unique facts of this case, and based on the printed language of the People’s own COC, is unable to find that the People certified these statements in good faith and after due diligence. The People’s assertion that they did not know the civilian witnesses had information about the case is, likewise, not persuasive. This is a case in which the People first accused defendant of driving recklessly and endangering others while under the influence of either alcohol or drugs. The people’s position that it did not know whether any of the civilian witnesses involved in the car accident had information related to the case is not convincing. The prosecutor’s obligations as detailed in CPL §245.20 ensure that the prosecutor has conducted the type of thorough investigation required when public safety and individual liberty interests are at stake. They also endeavor to guarantee that a defendant’s attorney is equipped with the information needed to effectively investigate allegations, zealously represent clients, and otherwise provide the quality of meaningful representation mandated by federal and state law. (See Sponsor’s Memo S-1716/A-1431 [Bailey/Lentol] [2018-2019 Session], Justification, indicating the intent of drafting legislators of 2020 Discovery Reform; U.S. Const., 6th Amend; NY Const., art. I, §6; People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 368 [1984].) Indeed, what seems like irrelevant material to a prosecutor may be vital information leading to a sworn testimony from a witness supporting a defense. This is especially true for witness contact information, regardless of the prosecutor’s individual assessment of that information or of the witnesses’ potential testimony. B. Evidence/Information Favorable to Defendant Contrary to the People’s assertion there is ambiguity over whether the People may only disclose mere summaries of a testifying police witnesses’ prior misconduct records, the Appellate Division has held that such summaries are insufficient to satisfy what C.P.L. §245.20[1][k][iv] requires. (Matter of Jayson C., 200 AD3d 447, 448-49 [1st Dep't 2021]; see also People v. Polanco-Chavarria, 74 Misc 3d 1210[A], at *4 [County Ct., Rockland County 2021] [analyzing Jayson C.]; Best, 76 Misc 3d 1210[A], at *5; People v. Goggins, 76 Misc 3d 898 [Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2022]). That decision is uncontested amongst the Appellate Division’s departments and is therefore controlling on all trial courts throughout the state [See Mountain View Coach Lines v. Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664 [2d Dep't 1984] [where another department's decision is the only authority "on point," then a trial court must understand that decision "to be binding authority"]). In Jayson C., the defense relied on the C.P.L. §245.20[1][k][iv] category of discovery and sought impeachment information about officers involved in the case. (Jayson C., 200 AD3d at 448). The lower court held that these disclosure letters were sufficient because it believed that C.P.L. §245.20[1][k][iv] was “inapplicable” to juvenile delinquency cases. (Id. at 448-49). The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, holding that “the denial of records available under C.P.L. §245.20[1][k][iv], which broadly requires disclosure of all impeachment evidence deprived appellant equal protection of the laws.” (Id. at 449). “A similarly situated defendant in a criminal proceeding,” it wrote, “would be entitled to access the impeachment materials requested by appellant.” (Id. [emphasis added]). Jayson C.’s conclusion is consistent with C P L §245.20[1][k][iv], and requires the disclosure of “[a]ll evidence and information, including that which is known to police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government’s behalf in the case, that tends to…impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness Following the law, several judges have found certificates of discovery compliance improper where the People only disclosed mere summaries of police misconduct. (E.g., People v. Dowling, Ind. 01123-2021 [Sup. Ct., Queens County 2022] [Gopee, J.]; People v. Belle, CR-002627-22QN [Crim. Ct. Queens County 2022] [Gershuny, J.]; People v. Bravo, CR-002662-22QN [Crim. Ct., Queens County 2022] [Johnson, J.]). As Judge Gershuny declared in People v. Best: “The principles of automatic disclosure and openness in the discovery process are hampered by the unilateral, self-serving, and incomplete Queens District Attorney’s Office practice of withholding and redacting police officer witness disciplinary records without leave of court or protective order. The Law Enforcement Officer Witness (LEOW) letters filed and served by the People are mere summaries without any substantive underlying documentation. To hold these LEOW letters as compliant with the prosecutorial discovery statute mandates would be to ignore the plain letter, spirit, and meaning of the statutory language “all evidence and information.” (76 Misc 3d 1210[A], at * 1). These decisions, contrary to the People’s contention, provide clear guidance on the law of discovery and reflect the overwhelming weight of authority interpreting the discovery statute (See, e.g., People v. Goggins, 76 Misc 3d 898 [Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2022] [Morales, J.]; People v. Martinez, 75 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim. Ct, NY County 2022] [Rosenthal, J.]; People v. Mohammed, CR-026662-21NY [Crim. Ct., NY County 2022] [Wang, J.]; People v. Spaulding, 75 Misc 3d 1219[A] [Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2022] [Licitra, J.]; People v. Perez, 71 Misc 3d 1214[A] [Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2021] [Johnson, J.]; People v. Sozoranga-Palacios, 73 Misc 3d 1214[A] [Crim. Ct, NY County 2021] [Stein, J.]; People v. Edwards, 74 Misc 3d 433 [Crim. Ct., NY County 2021] [Weiner, J.]). Courts have ruled that incomplete disclosures or subjective “summaries prepared by the People are insufficient to satisfy the mandates imposed by C.P.L. §245.20, as such evidence and information, which may ultimately be employed by the defense to impeach the credibility of the People’s testifying witness, should not be filtered through the prosecution.” (Goggins, 76 Misc 3d at 901). Despite these decisions, the People failed to disclose the underlying records, and CPI, concerning charges against officer Wind—precisely what the Appellate Division found insufficient in Jayson C. Moreover, if the People were unsure of their obligations pursuant to caselaw or statute, their obligation was to move for a protective order prior to withholding the evidence and filing its COC. Here, the prosecution moved for a protective order months after filing its COC. Yet, the statutory text of C.P.L. 245.20[1][k][iv] has “the force and effect of a court order.” (C.P.L. §245.20[5]). “The People may not simply ignore it until a judge explicitly tells them to comply.” See People v. Best, 76 Misc 3d 1210[A], Indeed, if the People nonetheless believed that some NYPD disciplinary records contain information that should not be disclosed, the statute provides a “process” to “follow.” (Best, 76 Misc 3d 1210[A]). “[P]rior to filing the certificate of compliance,” they must “seek a protective order” and ask a court to “rule as to whether the People may withhold” the information. (Best, 76 Misc 3d 1210[A], at *7). But aside from the statute’s limited exceptions, “it is not for the People alone to make this determination.” (Demonia, 74 Misc 3d at 759). The People simply never sought a “determination and ruling of the court” as to whether the contact information for witnesses or the police officers’ disciplinary records could be withheld prior to their certifying compliance. (C.P.L. §245.10[1][a]; see also Best, 76 Misc 3d 1210[A], at *7). Instead, they made unilateral determinations on their own, without permission from any court. C. Prior Statements by Persons with Relevant Evidence/Information CPL §245.20(1)(e) provides for disclosure of “all statements, written or recorded or summarized in any writing or recording, made by persons who have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto, including all police reports, notes of police and other investigators, and law enforcement agency reports.” Here, on June 12, 2022, the day of defendant’s arraignment, the People wrote to hospital personnel and requested that blood taken from defendant be preserved. The People’s correspondence indicates to the reader “warrant to follow.” On June 16, 2022, the People received a letter from the hospital alerting the People that the specimen was ready for “pick up.” See Korb Aff., pg. 21, Exh. H. Although, the People assert that they are not in possession of defendant’s blood and that no information was created from the blood, this argument is irrelevant. These documents were discoverable, and led to the preservation of evidence that was not known to defendant and counsel. Significantly, the People’s opposition papers, and disclosed NYPD Omniform System Complaint Report indicates that the defendant “refused to take blood test because [she] was sedated.” See Korb Aff. Exh. G (emphasis added). An effective defense counsel would timely explore the circumstances surrounding the extraction of a client’s blood, and whether it was tested or not, in a case involving allegations that the client drove recklessly while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The People could not file its COC prior to disclosing the blood preservation letters in their possession, and now newly presented in their Exh. H. In sum, the People have not exercised “due diligence” and “disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery.” (C.P.L. §245.50[1]). The Court finds that the People failed to meet their statutory obligations when the COC was filed, as well as when its two SCOCs were filed, and therefore, the original certificate is deemed invalid. The 30.30 calculation Since the COC has been deemed invalid, the People’s certificate of readiness filed on September 9th 2022 was ineffective to stop the speedy trial clock under CPL §30.30 (see People v. England, 84 NY2d at 4 ["A statement of readiness at a time when the People are not actually ready is illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock"]). The speedy trial clock therefore continued to run through December 13, 2022, the date the motion schedule was set. The court finds a total of 184 days are chargeable to the prosecution for the time period from arraignment to December 13, 2022, the date when the defendant’s motion schedule was set. Conclusion Considering the foregoing, the People’s COC dated September 9, 2022, is not valid. Since the prosecution was not ready for trial within 90 days of commencement of this criminal action, defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §30.30 is granted, and it is ordered that this matter is hereby dismissed. The Court need not reach defendant’s remaining arguments. The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the Court. Dated: March 9, 2023
