Background
Earin Sistrunk was indicted in Queens County (Indictment No. 73107/2025) on felony charges and held in custody pending trial. Under CPL 30.30(2)(a), a defendant held in custody on a felony must be released on bail or his own recognizance if the People are not ready for trial within 90 days from the commencement of confinement. Brooklyn Defender Services, through attorney Peter A. Barta, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus seeking Sistrunk’s release on the ground that the 90-day period had elapsed without the People establishing readiness.
The case turned on whether the People had validly declared readiness within the statutory window. On December 4, 2025, the People had filed a certificate of compliance (CoC)—the prerequisite under CPL 245.50 to declaring trial readiness following the automatic discovery obligations of CPL 245.20. However, on April 23, 2026—the very day of Sistrunk’s habeas application—the Supreme Court issued an order invalidating that December 4 CoC. The People argued they had separately filed a supplemental CoC and a restatement of readiness that fell within the speedy trial period. Queens County District Attorney Melinda Katz’s office defended the adequacy of the supplemental filing.
The Second Department considered whether the People’s supplemental CoC was sufficient to interrupt the running of the 90-day clock, or whether outstanding automatic discovery obligations rendered the supplemental filing invalid as well.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Department sustained the writ and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to set reasonable bail or release Sistrunk on his own recognizance. The court held that, notwithstanding the supplemental CoC and restatement of readiness, the record showed more than 60 items of automatic discovery remained outstanding as of the date of the habeas application. These items consisted primarily of documents tending to impeach the credibility of testifying prosecution witnesses—materials subject to mandatory disclosure under CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv).
Under People v. Bay (41 NY3d 200) and People v. Coley (240 AD3d 122), the People bear the burden of demonstrating that they exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries before certifying compliance. The court found the People failed to meet that standard. A supplemental CoC filed while more than 60 discovery items remain outstanding does not reflect the requisite due diligence. Because the supplemental CoC was invalid, the corresponding restatement of readiness was ineffective, and more than 90 days of delay chargeable to the People had elapsed. CPL 30.30(2)(a) therefore mandated release.
Key Takeaways
- A supplemental certificate of compliance filed while more than 60 items of mandatory automatic discovery remain outstanding does not satisfy the People’s due diligence obligation under Bay and Coley—even when styled as a cure of an earlier invalidated CoC.
- Impeachment materials for testifying prosecution witnesses (CPL 245.20[1][k][iv]) are automatic-discovery items that must be disclosed before the People can certify compliance; failure to produce them defeats readiness for CPL 30.30 purposes.
- When both the original CoC and a supplemental CoC are found deficient, the entire uncharged period counts against the People’s 90-day speedy trial clock for incarcerated felony defendants.
- Defense counsel may bring a CPL 30.30(2)(a) habeas application on the same day the original CoC is invalidated and trigger the 90-day calculation without a separate motion-day requirement.
Why It Matters
New York’s automatic discovery reform—effective January 2020—dramatically expanded the People’s pre-trial disclosure obligations and tied certificate of compliance validity directly to speedy trial time. This decision makes clear that supplemental CoCs are not a safety valve: if significant volumes of mandatory discovery remain unproduced, a supplemental filing is no more valid than the original. Criminal defense practitioners representing incarcerated felony defendants in New York should scrutinize whether the People have actually completed discovery under CPL 245.20 before accepting any restatement of readiness at face value.
For prosecutors and district attorney’s offices statewide, the decision reinforces that due diligence under Bay is a factual burden that must be established on the record. Fifty-plus outstanding items—especially impeachment materials presumptively within the People’s possession—will not be excused by a later supplemental filing. Queens County and Second Department practitioners should note that the court’s analysis applies the post-reform discovery rules rigorously in the speedy trial context, with habeas release as the consequence of non-compliance.