Court Opinion

ID: 9946432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 18:14:43.961878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:21.547422
License: Public Domain

People v Suarez
               2022 NY Slip Op 34690(U)
                   November 28, 2022
           County Court, Westchester County
        Docket Number: Indictment No. 20-70271
                  Judge: Robert J. Prisco
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
         COUNTY COURT: ST ATE OF NEW YORK
         COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
         ----------------------------------------------~;- ._,. , --. ·. ------x

          .
         THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFrNEW~Jy<:
                             .
                                                         : ~•L ED·.
                                                        .i.
                         -agamst-                       t           ·DECISION ORDER ,   l
                                                                                                       &
                                                        :·       DEC
         SANDRO SUAREZ,

         count of Burglary in the Third Degree pursuant to Penal Law [PL] § 140.20 [Count One], one
         count of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree pursuant to PL§ 155.35 (1) [Count Two], and one
         count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree pursuant to PL § 165.50
         [Count Three]. The charges pertain to Defendant's alleged unlawful entry into the Verizon Store
         building located at 89 Pondfield Road, in the Village of Bronxville, and his alleged theft of
         property which had a value in excess of three-thousand dollars ($3,000.00). The offenses are
        · alleged to have occurred at approximately 5:50 a.m., on October 9, 2019.
                 On July 11, 2022, Defendant was arraigned by this Court on the charges contained in
         Indictment Number 20-70271. Attached to the indictment is the People's Demand for a Notice of ·
         Alibi pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law [CPL] § 250.20.
                  On July 13, 2022, the People served and filed, via email, a CPL § 710.30 (1) (a) Notice
         regarding the People's intent to offer evidence of statements allegedly made by the defendant to a
         member or'the Bronxville Police Department, l and Discovery Package Transmittal Notices from
         the Westchester County District Attorney's Office which delineate the date, time and method ·of
         evidentiary disclosure.
                 During a court appearance on July 29, 2022, the People·served and filed a Notice of Motion
         for the Taking of Buccal Cell Samples, an Affirmation in Support of the Taking of Buccal Cell

         ~ The CPL § 710.30 (!) (a) notice pertains to an electronically recorded oral statement that was allegedly made by
         Defendant at the Bronxville Police Department located at 200 Pondfield Road, in the Village of Bronxville, at
         approximately 8:36 p.rri.; on October 10, 2019. ·                                ·

                                                                     1

                                                                               .I
[* 1]
        Samples, and. a Memorandum of Law seeking an Order "requiring the defendant to permit the
        taking of DNA samples from his body via buccal cell swabs," pursuant to CPL§ 245.40 (1) (e).
                 On August 12, 2022, the People served and filed a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to
        CPL § 245.50 (1 ), 2 with an attached "Discovery Disclosure Index" that identifies the items and
        materials that have reportedly been disclosed or provided to defense counsel. Also attached to the
        Certificate of Compliance are Discovery Package Transmittal Notices from the Westchester
        County District Attorney's Office which delineate the dates, times· and methods of such disclosures
        and a Westchester County Department of Laboratories & Research Static Materials Discovery
        Disclosure pursuant to CPL·§ 245.20 (1) (f), G), and (s). Within the People's Certificate of
        Compliance is a "Statement of Readiness," wherein the People state that they "confirm and
        announce their readiness for trial on all counts charged." The Court is also in receipt of the .
        People's Demand for Reciprocal Discovery pursuant to CPL§ 245.20 (4).
                On August 30, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Pre-Trial Motions pursuant to CPL Article
        255 (hereinafter "Notice of Motion"), an Attorney's Affirmation, and a Memorandum of Law
                                                                                                                 .      .
        seeking various forms of judicial intervention and relief Defendant also filed an Affirmation in
        Opposition to the People's Motion for the Taking of Buccal Cell Samples.
                On September 12, 2022, this Court received the People's Affirmation in Opposition and
        Memorandum of Law in response to Defendant's motion for omnibus relief. The People also filed
        a Notice of Cross' Motion to Amend Indictment (hereinafter "Notice· of_ Cross Motion"), an
        Affirmation in Support of Cross Motion to Amend Indictment (hereinafter "Affirmation in Support
        of Cross Motion), and a Memorandum of Law.
                 The Court is also in receipt of an unredacted certified copy of the stenographic transcript
        of the Grand Jury proceeding dated February 26, 2020, an unredacted certified copy of the ·
        stenographic transcript of the instructions on the law dated March 3, 2020, and copies of the Grand
        Jury exhibits that were received in evidence. The Court has further been provided with a Search
        Warrant Affidavit, a Search Warrant Order, an Amended Search Warrant Affidavit, and an
        Amended Search Warrant Ord~r.

        2
         The Court is also in receipt of a Discovery Checklist, a Discovery Addendum pursuant to CPL §§ 245. l 0 and 245.20,
        a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to CPL§ 245.50 (I), and a Reciprocal Discovery Demand, all filed in Bronxville.
        Village Court on February 4, 2020.

                                                                 2

[* 2]
                 After consideration of the above referenced submissions and the aforementioned
         unredacted certified stenographic transcripts, the Court decides Defendant's Motion as follows:

         1. MOTION TO AMEND INDICTMENT NUMBER 20-70271.

                 Citing CPL § 200.70 (1), the People cross move to amend "count one of Indictment
         Number [20-70271] to reflect the added language of 'and unlawfully' for which evidence was
         presented and voted upon by the grand jury" (see Page 1 of the People's Notice of Cross Motion).
         Specifically, the People contend that the purpose of the amendment is to correct a "clerical
         oversight" and that such correction does not change the theory of the prosecution since the People
         included the language "and unlawfully" in the testimony and charge to the Grand Jury for Burglary
         in the Third Degree as set forth under Count One of the indictment (see Point I, Page 1, of the
         People's Memorandum
                           I
                             of Law).
                Pursuant to CPL§ 200.70 (I), ':a trial court may permit an indictment to be amended with ·
        · respect to defects, errors or variances from the proof relating to (the] matters of form, time, place,
         names ofpersons and the like" (People v Bloome, 205 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2d Dept 2022], iv. denied
         38 NY3d 1132 (2022J; see People v Solomon, 203 AD3d 1468, 1470 [3d De.pt 2022]; People v
         Winston, 205 AD3d 32, 39 [1st Dept 2022]; People v McLean, 170 AD3d 1196, 1197-1198 [2d
         Dept 2019]; People v LaPetina, 34 AD3d 836, 838-839 (2d Dept 2006], aff'd 9 NY3d 854 (2007]).
         However, an indictment may not be amended to "change the theory or theories of the prosecution
         as reflected_ in the evidence before the grand jury ... or otherwise tend to prejudice the defendant
        on the merits" (People v Winston, 205 AD3d at 39; People v Taylor, 202 AD3d 1461, 1461 (4th
        Dept 2022]; People v McLean, 170 AD3d at 1197-1198; People v Guzman, 153 AD3d 1273, 1275-
         1276 (2d Dept 2017]; People v Elie, 110 AD3d 1003, 1005 (2d Dept 2013], iv. denied 22 NY3d
         1040 [2013]; People   vLaPetina, 34 AD3d at 838-839; People· v Massaro, 8 AD3d 408, 408 [2d
        Dept 2004], l.v. denied 3 NY3d 678 (2004]; People v Luna, 270 AD2d 501, 502 [2d Dept 2000],
         Iv. denied95 NY2d 799 [2000]; CPL§ 200.70 (1)). Further, "an indictment may not 'be amended
        for the purpose of curing [a] failure thereof to charge or state an offense or (a] (l]egal insufficiency
        of the factual allegations"' (People v-Solomon, 203 AD3d at 1470, quoting CPL§ 200.70 (2) (a)
        and (b); see People v Placido, 149 AD3d 1157, 1157'.1158 [3d Dept 2017]; People v Ceballos, 98
        AD2d 475, 477 [2d Dept 1984]) "or [a] misjoinder of offenses or defendants" (People v Mayo, 19

                                                           3

[* 3]
         AD3d 710, :711-712 [3d Dept 2005]; People v Ceballos, 98 AD2d at 477; CPL§ 200.70 (2) (c)
         and (d)).

                 Here, the People's amendment of the indictment to include the word "unlawfully" does not
        change the theory of the prosecution or tend to prejudice the defendant on the merits. In reviewing
        the unredacted certified transcript of the law provided to· the Grand Jury on March 3, 2020_, the
        instructions conveyed the correct elements of -Burglary in the Third Degree. Further, while the
        prosecutor instructed the grand jurors on the term "Enter or remains unlawfully" pursuant to PL
         § 140.00 (5) without specifying the theory upon which they were proceeding, it is clear from the
        evidence presented that the People were proceeding under a theory of unlawful entry (Pe.ople v
        Green, 105 AD3d 611, 6i 1-612 [1st Dept 2013], lv.,denied21 NY3d 1015 [2013]), and "[w]hether
         [a] person [is] licensed or privileged to enter a building may be proved by circumstantial evidence"
        (People v Henry, 169 AD3d 1273, 1273 [3d Dept 2019], Iv. denied 33 1'JY3d 1070 [2019], citing
        People v Bethune, 65 AD3d 749, 751 [3rd Dept 2009]; see People v Daniels, 8 AD3d 1022, 1023
         [4th Dept 2004]; Matter of Tyshawn J., 304 AD2d 331,· 331 [1st Dept 2003]). Thus, "[t]he
        prosecutor's reading of the relevant statutory provisions was sufficient to enable the grand jury to
        determine whether [the crime of Burglary in the Third Degree] was committed and whether legally
        sufficient evidence existed to establish the material elements of that crime" (People v Green, 105
        AD3d at 612; People v Calbud, Inc. 49 NY2d 389, 394-396 [1980]; People v Scott, 175 AD2d
        625,626 [4th Dept 1991], lv. denied78 NY2d 1130 [1991]).

                Accordingly, the People's cross motion is granted to the extent that Count On_e is amened
        to reflect that "The Defendant, in the Village of Bronxville, County of Westchester _and State of
        New York, on or about October 9, 2019, did knowingly and unlawfully enter a building with intent
        to commit a crime therein."

          2. MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT NUMBER 20-70271 FOR FACIAL
        · INSUFFICIENCY.

               . Citing CPL§ 210.25 (1), Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that"it
        does not substantially conform to the requirements stated in [CPL] Section·200.50 (7) (a) ... [as] ·
        [t]here is no plain and concise factual statement supporting every element of the offense(s) charged
        and Mr. Suarez' commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise him of the conduct

                                                         4

[* 4]
        which is the subject of the accusation" (see Point A, Page 2, of Defendant's Notice of Motion and
        Point A, Page 1, of Defendant's Memorandum of Law).

                 In response, the People assert that Defendant's motion should be denied as the instant
        indictment provides facts that support every element of the offenses charged and "does so in the
        language of the statute" (see Point A, Page 1, of the People's Memorandum of Law).

                "The essential purpose of a criminal_ indictment is to provide a defendant 'with fair notice
        of the accusations made against him, so that he will be able to prepare a defense"' (People v
        Winston, 205 AD3d at 38, quoting People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 594 [1978]; see People v
        Morris, .61 NY2d 290, 293 [1984]; People v Williams, 132 AD3d 785, 785-786 [2d Dept 2015],
        lv. denied 26 NY3d 1151 [2016], re con. denied 27 NY3d 1009 [2016]; People v Atta, 126 AD3d
        713, 715 [2d Dept 2015], lv. denied25 NY3d 1159 [2015]). "An indictment must.c:ontain 'a plain
        and concise factual statement in each count' which, without allegations of an evidentiary
        nature, ... asserts   facts   supporting every element of the          offense   charged and the
        defendant's ... commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise [him] of the conduct
        wh_ich is the subject of the accusation"' (People v Nunez-Garcia, 178 '.AD3d 1087, 1088 [2d Dept
        2019], lv. denied35 NY3d 943 [2020]), citing CPL§ 200.50 (7) (a); see People v Grega, 72 NY2d
        489,498 [1988]; People v Morris, 61 NY2d at 293; People v Iannone, 45 NY2d at 598; People v
        Rice, 172 AD3d 1616, 1617 [3d Dept 2019]; _People v Singleton, 130 AD2d 598, 599 [2d Dept
        1987], aff'd 72 NY2d 845 [1988]).
                Here, each of the .three (3) counts contained in Indictment Number 20-70271 contains a
        statement that satisfies the requirements of CPL § 200.50 (7) (a), the cases cited above, and further
        provides the date on which the conduct is alleged to have occurred (see CPL § 200.50 (6); People
        v Henry, 183 AD3d 607, 608 [2d Dept 2020]; People v Atta, 126 AD3d_ at 715]). Accordingly,
        Defendant's motion to dismiss Indictment Number 20-70271 for facial insufficiency is denied.

        3. MOTION FOR INSPECTION OF GRAND JURY MINUTES AND DISMISSAL OR
                   I                                                       •

        REDUCTION OF THE CHARGES CONTAINED IN INDICTMENT NUMBER 20-70271
        DUE TO THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND THE
        INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED.
                Citing CPL Article 210, Defendant moves "for inspection of the Grand Jury minutes by
        the Court and subsequent to that inspection, for the· dismissal of the indictment or reduction of the

                                                         5

[* 5]
        counts thereof, on the grounds that the evidence before the Grand Jury was not legally sufficient,
        and that the Grand Jurors were not'properl)' instructed on the applicable law, and on lesser included
        offenses" (see Point B, Page 2, of Defendant's Nptice of Motion and Point B, Pages 1-5, of
        Defend~t's Memorandum of Law). · Specifically, Defendant contends that the Grand Jury
        evidence was insufficient because the testimony failed to show that the Yonkers Police Department ·
        had probable cause to stop the vehicle and the People failed to provide sufficient evidence that
                               .                                                         '
        Defendant acted with the necessary criminal intent regarding the charge of Burglary in the Third
        Degree (see Pages 2-3 of Defendant's Memorandum of Law).

               Defendant also contends that the People "failed to provide substantiation for the value of
        the items alleged to be stolen," that the testimony of the owner of the Verizon Store "was based
        on mere· speculation about the value of the items lost" and, therefore, that the People did not prove
        the required elements of valuation as to the charges of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and
        Crimi1p~l Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree (see Page 2 of Defendant's
        Memorandum of Law).

               In their response, the People consent to an. in-camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes
        by the Court (see Point B, Page 2, of the Pe·ople's Memorandum of Law), contend that the.
        indictment is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see Point B, Pages·2-6, of the People's
        Memorandum of Law), and assert that "Defendant has failed to meet his high burden of showing
        the existence of any error in the grand jury proceeding which rendered it defective" (see Point B,
        Page 6, of the People's Memorandum_ofLaw).

               As to the value of the stolen items, the People contend that "[d]uring the course of the
        grand jury proceedings, the People elicited testimony from the owner of the Verizon Store about
        the specific items that were stolen and their value and nioved into evidence photographs of the
        stolen items recovered pursuant to the search warrant" (see Point B, _Pages 3-4, of the People's·
        Memorandum of Law). The People aver that "[t]his evidence coupled with the fact that the average
        juror has knowledge as to what cellular devices cost given the mainstream use of cellular devices
        in today's society provides
                                .                                        .
                                    a sufficient bases of knowledge for the grand jurors to ascertain the .
        value of the stolen items" (see Point B, Page 4, of the People's Memorandum of Law).

                                                         6'

[* 6]
               The People further contend that the defendant was lawfully arrested and that they offered
        sufficient proof of his criminal intent with respect to. the Burglary in the Third Degree count (see ·
        Point B, Pages 4-6, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
               The Court has conducted an in-camera review of the entirety of the Grand Jury
        proceedings, having examined the unredacted certified copies of the stenographic transcripts of
        the Grand Jury proceeding dated February 26, 2020 and the instructions on the law dated March
        3, 2020.
                   On February 26, 2020, prior to the commencement of the given sworn testimony, the
        · People specifically inquired of and confirmed with the foreperson that twenty-two (22) grand
        jurors were present. Prior to instructing the grand jurors on the applicable law on March 3, 2020,
        the People. confirmed with the foreperson that those twenty-two (22) grand jurors were present
        throughout -the presentation of the case. These measures by the People satisfy this Court that the
        twenty-two (22) grand jurors who deliberated and voted on the charges contained in Indictment
        Number 20-70271 were present throughout the one-day presentation of the case.
               "Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate
        'wheth~r the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted-
        and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence-\.\'.ould warrant conviction'"
        (People v Mills, 1 NY3d 269, 274-275 [2003], quoting People v Carroll, 93 NY2d 564,568 [1999];
        see People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 525 [1998]; People v Jensen, 86 NY2d 248, 251 [1995]; People
        v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 114 [1986]; People v Booker, 164 AD3d 819, 820 [2d Dept 2018];
        People v Hulsen, 150 AD3d 1261, 1262 [2d Dept 2017], lv. denied30 NY3d 950 [2017]; People
        v Flowers, .138 AD3d 1138, 1139 [2d Dept 2016]). Legally sufficient evidence is "competent
        evidence which, if accepted as true; would establish every element of an offense.charged and the
        defendant's commission thereof' (CPL§ 70.10 (1); see People v Mills, l NY3d at 274; People v
        . Franov, 146 AD3d 978, 979 [2d Dept 2017]; People v Wisey, 133 AD3d 799,800 [2d Dept 2015];
        People v Ryan 125 AD3d 695, 696 [2d Dept 2015], lv. denied 25 NY3d 1077 [2015]). "In the
        context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes
        charged, not proof beyond a reasonable. doubt" (People v Jessup, 90 AD3d 782, 783 [2d ·Dept
        2011 ], quoting People v- Bello, 92 NY2d .at 526; see People
                                                               .     v Ryan, 125 AD3d at 696; People v
        Woodson, 105 AD3d 782, 783 [2d Dept 2013]). This Court's inquiry is "limited to 'whether the
        facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every

                                                          7

[* 7]
        element of the charged crimes,' and whether 'the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty
        inference"' (People v Bello, 92 NY2d at 526, quoting People v Deegan, 69 NY2d 976,979 [1987];
        see People v Pino, 162 AD3d 910, 911 [2d Dept 2018]). _
                 Here, the evidence presented to the Grand Jury, when viewed in the light most favorable
        to the People, was l~gally sufficient to establish and support the charge of Burglary in the_ Third
        Degree as set forth in Count One of Indictment Number 20-70271. _
                 However, as to the charges of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession
        of Stolen Property in the Third Degree, as set forth in Counts Two and Three, respectively, the
        People failed to prove that the value of the property that was allegedly stolen and possessed by
        Defendant exceeds three-thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
                 Pursuant to PL§ 155.20 (1), "value means the market value of the property at the time and
        place of the crime, or if such cannot be .satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the
        property within a reasonable time after the crime." "Any person who testifies as to the value of an
        item 'must provide a basis of knowledge for his [or her] .statement of value before it can be
        accepted as legally sufficient evidence of such value"' (People v Sutherland, 102 AD3d 897, 898
        [2d Dept 2013], quoting People v Lopez, 79 NY2d 402,"404 [1992]; see People v Piasta, 207 AD3d
        1054, 1058 [4th Dept 2022], lv. denied 38 NY3d 1190 [2022]; People v Box, 181 _AD3d 1238,
        1241 [4th Dept 2020], lv. ·denied 35 NY3d 1025 [2020]; People v Slack, 137 AD3d 1°568, 1569
        [4th Dept 2016],    Iv. denied27 NY3d 1139 [2016]). '"Conclusory statements and rough estimates
        of value' that are unsupported by a basis of knowledge are insufficient" (People v Sutherland, 102
        AD3d at_ 899, quoting People v Loomis, 56 AD3d 1046, 1047 [3d Dept 2008]; see People v Box,
        181 AD3d at 1241; People v Slack, 137 AD3d at 1569; People v Walker, 119 AD3d 1402, 1402-
        1403 [4th Dept 2014]; People v Pallagi, 91 AD3d 1266, 1269 [4th Dept 2012]).
                Here, although the store owner testified regarding the items that were missing3 and
        estimated that "[t]he value [of such items] was about $13,800" (see Page 19, Line 1, of Grand Jury
        Transcript dated March 3, 2020), he failed to provide a basis of knowledge for his ~tatement and
        there was no other evidence as to the value of the stolen property (see People v Sutherland, 102
        AD3d at 899). Thus, the People failed to meet their burden of proving the required value element

        3
          The store owner aileged that the items that were stolen included six (6) iPho~e I ls, two (2) Samsung Note !Os, two
        (2) Samsung SlOs, one (1) Kyocera phone, two (2) iPad tablets, two (2) Verizon tablets, and three (3) Verizon Hums
        (see Page 18, Lines 19-23, of Grand Jury Transcript dated March 3, 2020).                          ·

                                                                 8

[* 8]
         of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (PL § 155.35) and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property
         in the Third Degree (PL § 165.50), to wit, a property value in excess of three-thousand dollars
         ($3,000.00).
                Notwithstanding the above, the evidence presented to the Grand Jury did establish the
         crimes of Petit Larceny (PL § 155.25) and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth
         Degree (PL§ 165.40), as value is not an element thereof.
                A Grand Jury proceeding is "defective," warranting dismissal of the indictment, only where
         the "proceeding ... fails to conform to the requirements of CPL Article 190 to such degree that
         the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result" (CPL§ 210.35 (5); see
         People v Arevalo, 172 AD3d 891,892 [2d Dept 2019]; People v Williams, 171 AD3d 804,805 [2d
         Dept 2019]). Dismissal of an indictment under CPL § 210.35 (5) is an "exceptional remedy" that
         "should ... be limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or
         errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the Grand Jury'' (People v Huston, 88
         NY2d 400, 409 [1996]; see People v Williams, 171 AD3d at 805; People v Burch, 108 AD3d 679,
         680 [2d Dept 2013], lv. denied22 NY3d 1087 [2014]; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670,671 [2d
         Dept 2011], aff'd 22 NY3d 687 [2014]). Here, the Court finds that no such wrongdoing, conduct
         or errors occurred.
                Further, while a prosecutor is required to instruct the grand jury on the law with respect to
         matters before it (People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38 [1984]; People v Tunit, 149 AD3d 1110, 1110
         [2d Dept 2017]; People v Samuels, 12 AD3d 695, 698 [2d Dept 2004]; see CPL§_ 190.25 (6)), "a
        . Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit
         jury is instructed on the law" (People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d at 394; see People v Caracciola,
         78 NY2d 1021, 1022 [1991]; People v Batashure, 75 NY2d 306,311 [1990]; People v Goetz, 68
         NY2d 96, 115 [1986]; People vValles 62 NY2d 36, 38 [1984]; People v Tunit, 149 AD3d at 1110;
         People v Castaldo, 146 AD3d 797, 798 [2d Dept 2017]; People v Burch, 108 AD3d at 680; People·
        · v Malan:.P omaeyna, 72 AD3d 988 [2d Dept 201 O]). · It is well settled that such instructions are
         sufficient so long as they provide "enough information to enable [the grand jury] intelligently to
         decide whether a crime has been committed and to determine whether there exists legally sufficient
         evidence to establish the material elements of the crime" (People v Cal bud, Inc., 49 NY2d at 394-
         395; see People v Valles 62 NY2d at 38; People v Tunit, 149 AD3d at 1110-1111; People v
         Patterson, 73 AD3d 1215, 1215 [2d Dept 2010], lv. denied 15 NY3d 776 [2010]; P~ople v Malan-

                                                         9

[* 9]
         Pomaeyna, 72 AD3d at 988).
                 After an in-camera reviewof the unredacted certified copies of the stenographic transcripts
         of the Grand Jury proceeding and the instructions on the law prnvided therein, this Court
         . determines that the Grand Jury proceeding was not defective and that the instructions given during
         the presentation were legally sufficient and proper.

                 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion to dismiss or reduce the
         charge of Burglary in the Third Degree is denied and his motion to dismiss or reduce the charges
         of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third
         Degree is granted to the extent that such counts are reduced to Petit Larceny and Criminal
         Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree, respectively.

         4. MOTION FOR PRECLUSION OF DEFENDANT'S PRIOR CRIMES OR BAD ACTS;
         ASSOCIATED SANDOVAL AND VENTIMIGLIA HEARINGS.

                 Relying on People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974], and People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d
         350 [1981 ], Defendant moves for a pre-trial hearing "to determine the admissibility at trial for any
         purpose of any and all alleged c·riminal convictions and/or criminal, ·vicious or immoral acts of
         defend~nt," and requests that the People notify him of"all specific instances of defendant's alleged
         prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct of which the prosecution has knowledge,
         and which the District Attorney intends to use at trial" (see Point C, Pages 2-3, of Defendant's
         Notice of Motion and Point E, Pages 5-6, of Defendant's Memorandum of Law).
                In .response, the People acknowledge their Sandoval and Ventimiglia obligations and
         consent to hearings on same if such disclosure is made (see Point C, Page 9, of the .People's
         Memorandum of Law). The People also indicate that should they "seek to introduce defendant's
         prior bad acts on their direct case [pursuant to People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901 ]]; the People
         will inform defense counsel and the Court and. request a hearing before introducing such Molineux
         evidence" (see Point C, Page 9, of the People's Memorandum of Law).

                CPL§ 245.20 (3) (a) provides, in substance and pertinent part, that "[t]he prosecut.ion shall
         disclose to the defendant a list of all misconduct and criminal acts of the defendant not charged in
         the indictment, which the pmsecution intends to use at trial for _purposes of impeaching the
         credibility of the defendant." To the extent that the People seek to use any of Defendant's prior

                                                          10

[* 10]
          acts of misconduct or criminality on their direct case as substantive proof of any material issue in
         the case, CPL§ 245.20 (3) (b) likewise obligates "[t]he prosecution [to} disclose to the defendant
         a list of all misconduct and criminal acts of the defendant not charged in the indictment, which the
         prosecution intends to use at trial [for such purpose]." Lastly, CPL§ 245.20 (3) further requires
         that "the prosecution shall designate whether it intends to use each listed act for impeachment
         and/or as substantive proof"
                 As the People. have concededly not yet disclosed to the defendant a list of his acts of
         misconduct and criminality which the prosecution intends to use at trial for impeaching his
         credibility or as substantive proof of any material issue in the case, nor designated their intended
         use thereof, this Court will no.t order the requested Sandoval and Ventimiglia hearings at the present
         time. Should the· People seek to use at trial any prior acts of miscqnduct or criminality of the
         defendant for CPL § 245.20 (3) (a) or (b) purposes, they are directed to disclose to Defendant a
         list of all such acts of misconduct and criminality and to d~signate the intended purpose of each
         listed act. Pursuant to CPL § 245.10 (1) (b ), the People "shall perform [these] supplemental
         discovery obligations as soon as practicable but not later than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to
         the first scheduled trial date" (emphasis added). If the People do so, Defendant may renew his
         application to preclude the People's use of such acts of misconduct or criminality at trial or, in the
         alternative, request a hearing thereon to determine the admissibility thereof. If the People fail to
         do so, no use of such acts will be permitted at trial.

         5. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND TO CONTROVERT SEARCH
         WARRANTS.

                 Citing· CPL Articles 690 and 710, · Defendant moves to suppress "all evidence seized
         pursuant to a search warrant and [to controvert] the search warrant' 1 (see Point D, Page 3, of
         Defendant's Notice of Motion).       Specifically, Defendant contends that the affidavits "fail to
         establish a nexus between [Defendant's] residence at 26 Yonkers A venue, the Grey Mercedes
         Benz, the items illegally seized from [Defendant's] person as a result of the unlawful stop and the
         i~ems seized from the BMW X3" (see Point D, Page 6; of Defendant's .Memorandum of Law).
         · Defendant further contends that the search warrant application was overbroad as such request did
         not indicate that the police ·were authorized to retrieve SIM Cards and SIM Card Starter Kits and
         that the police failed to list the make and model of the cell phones allegedly taken from the Verizon

                                                           11

[* 11]
          Store in their application (see Point D, Page 7, of Defendant's Memorandum of Law). In the
          alternative, Defendant seeks a hearing on this issue (see Point D, Page 7, of Defendant's
          Memorandum of Law).

                 Citing Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 [1961], and Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979],
          Defendant also moves to suppress and prohibit "the use at trial or any hearing on this matter of all
          evidence, including all physical evidence, and any statements in that such evidence and property .
                     .         .
          was unlawfully seized and was the fruit of an unlawful arrest, as defendant was arrested without ·
          probable cause" (see Point E, Page 3, of Defendant's Notice of Motion and Point E, Page 7, of
          Defendant's Memorandum of Law). Specifically, Defendant contends that "a pair of keys
          belonging to the Mercedes Benz" and found on his person were recovered without his consent,
          and that the police conducted an "unlawful search of the BMW_ X3," during which they found
          cellular devices in the back of the vehicle (see Point E, Pages 8-9, of Defendant's Memorandum
         of Law). In the alternative, Defendant seeks "a hearing to determine w~ether defendant was
          arrested with probable cause and the admissibility of such physical evidence including the bladed
          knife alleged to have been found on [his] person" (see Point E, Page 3, of Defendant's Notice of
          Motion).

                 In response, the People allege that Defendant's motion to controvert the search warrant and
         to suppress the evidence seized should be denied since the search warrant was supported by
          probable cause and is sufficiently specific and not overbroad (see Point D, Pages 11-15, of the
         . People's M_emorandum of Law). 4 The People further contend that the defendant does not have
          s~anding to contest the search of the 2016 Mercedes Benz or the BMW X3 (see Point D, Pages 1O.,
          11, and Point E, Pcige 20, of the People's Memorandum of Law). Finally, the People aver that
         Defondant's motion to suppress physical evidence should be denied as the Defendant was lawfully
         arrested and that, should the Court find that Defendant has standing, the items recovered from the
         Mercedes Benz and the BMW X3 were properly
                                             .
                                                    recovered pursuant to an inventory
                                                                                    .
                                                                                       search in
         accordance with standard procedure or the automobile exception to the warrant requirement (see

          4
           The People state that on October I I, 2019, "an amended warrant application was submitted by a member of the .
         Village of Bronxville Police Department when it was discovered, upon the execution of the previously signed warrant
         order, that defendant resides in Apartment 2R at 26 Yonkers Avenue and not Apartm~nt 4L as defendant initially told
         police" (emphasis added) (s·ee Point D, Page 14, of the People's Memorandum of Law). The Court presumes from
         the emphasized language above that both a search warrant and an amended search warrant were executed in connection
         with this matter.                                                                                          ·

                                                                12

[* 12]
           Point E, Pages 16-22, of the People's Memorandum ~f Law). ·

                   A court reviewing a search warrant is required t? give the issuing court "great deference"
          . in determining whether there was probable cause, as a presumption of validity attaches to a search
           warrant approved by a. magistrate who reviews the underlying application and finds sufficient
           evidence of probable cause (People v Castillo, 80 NY2d 578, 585 (1992], cert. denied 507 U.S.
           1033 [1993]; see People v Griminger, 71 NY2d 635 [1988];_People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549,558
           [1975]; People v Crupi, 172 AD3d 898 [2d Dept 2019], lv.- denied 34 NY3d 950 [2019]; People v
           Calise, 256 AD2d 64, 65 [1st Dept 1998], iv. denied 93 NY2d 851 [1999]). To establish probable
           cause, "a search warrant application must provide the magistrate with information sufficient to-
           support a reasonable belief that evidence of illegal activity will be present at the specific time and
           place" (People v Edwards, 69 NY2d 814,816 [1987]; see People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417,423
           [1985]; People v Lambey, 176 AD3d 1232, 1233 [2d Dept 2019]; People v Murray, 136 AD3d
           714 [2d Dept 2016], Iv .. denied 27 NY3d 1003 [2016] People v Leggio, 84 AD3d 1116, 1117 [2d
           Dept 2011]; People v Griffin, 28 AD3d 578, 578-579 [2d Dept 2006], lv. denied 7 NY3d 789
           [2006]; People v Corr, 28 AD3d 574, 575 [2d Dept 2006], lv. denied 7 NY3d 787 [2006]). "In
           reviewing the validity of a search warrant to determine whether it w·as supported by probable cause
           or whether it contained a sufficiently particular description of its target, the critical facts and
           circumstances for the reviewing court are those which were made known to the issuing Magistrate
           at the time the warrant application was determined" (People v Gordon, 36 NY3_d 420, 429 [2021 ],
           quoting People v Nieves, 36 NY2d 396, 402 [1975]; see People v Pitcher, 199 AD3d 1_493, 1494
           [4th Dept 2021 ]).

                   Defendant's motion for suppression of physical evidence is granted to the extent that
           hearings pursuant to Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 [1961], and Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200
           [1979],
               .
                   will be conducted to determine whether
                                                      .
                                                          Defendant has standing to contest the sefilches and
          . seizures at issue (People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 108 [1996]; see People v Leach, 21
           NY3d 969, 971 [2013]; People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 358-359 [1989]; People v Kluge, 180
           AD3d 705, 707 [2d Dept 2020]; feople v Santiago, 176 AD3d 744, 745 [2d Dept-2019]; People v
           McCullum, 159 AD3d 8, 12-13 [2d Dept 2018], aff'd 34 NY3d 1022 [2019]) and, if so, whether
         · · the search warrant and the amended search warrant described the items to be seized with sufficient
           particularity so as to not authorize a general, exploratory search (People v Fernandez, 2022 NY

                                                            13

[* 13]
          Slip Op 06137 [2d Dept 2022]; see People v Nieves, 36 NY2d at 401-402; People v Williams, 187
          AD3d 1222, 1223-1224 [2d Dept 2020]; People v Melamed,178 AD3d 1079, 1081-1082 [2d Dept
          2019]).

          6. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS.

                    Citing CPL Ar:ticle 710, the Fourth, Fifth; Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
          States Constitution and Article I, Section 6, of the New York State Constitution, Defendant moves
          to suppress any statements allegedly made by him as violative of his rights (see Point F, Page 4,
          of Defendant's Notice of Motion and Point F, Page 10, of Defendant's Memorandum of Law).
          Specifically, Defendant contends. that such statements were involuntarily made and "asserts that
          his initial arrest was unconstitutional and made without the requisite probable cause" (see Point F,
          Page 10, of Defendant's M(:::monindum of Law). In the alte_mative, Defendant "requests a Huntley
          hearing ... to aid the Court in determining the issues raised" (see Point F, Page 10, of Defendant's
          Memorandum of Law).
                    In response, the People conclude their counter arguments by stating that, "[a]s no conduct
          requiring suppression occurred prior to or during defendant's statement[s] and his statem~nt[s]
          [were] entirely voluntary, after a Huntley hearing, defendant's mot.ion to suppress his statements
         should be denied" (see Point F, Page 28, of the People's Memorandum of Law). •
                    As the People have impliedly' consented to a hearing to address Defendant's claims,
         · Defendant's motion to suppress statements is granted to the extent that hearings pursuant to People
         v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965], and Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200(1979], will be conducted
         to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of the noticed statements.

          7. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE AND TO DEEM THE CERTIFICATE
          OF COMPLIANCE INVALID AND THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY.
                    Citing CPL § 245.20, Defendant contends that the People have not fully complied with
         their discovery obligations and, thus, he requests that the Court_ deem the Certificate of Compliance
         dated August 12, 2022 invalid and the Statement of Readiness. illusory (see Point G,-Pages 12-13,

                                                           14

[* 14]
          of Defendant's Memorandum ofLaw). 5 Specifically, Defendant avers that the People have failed
          to provide the-Search Warrant R,eturn pursuant to CPL§ 690.50 (4) and (5), photographs of"a red
          bin [that] was recovered [and] abandoned. near 26 Yonkers Avenue," Grand Jury exhibits, a
         pedestrian 911 call, and documents pertaining to his "Yonkers arrest" (see Point G, Pages 12-13,
         of Defendant's Memorandum of Law). Defendant also claims that the "CPL § 245.20 (1) (k)
         disclosures for the officers involved are outdated" and incomplete (see Point G, Page 13, of
          Defendant's Memorandum of Law).

                  In response, the People assert that; because they "certified their compliance with the
         discovery demands ofCPL [§] 245.20 on August 12, 2022, when the People filed their Certificate
         of Compliance (CPL [§] 245.50 (l), ... [the] defendant's argument that the People have failed to
         comply with the statute is moot" (see Point G, Page 29, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
         The People have also provided the Court with· descriptions of the additional materials and
         information that have allegedly been provided to Defendant and the dates upon which such
         . disclosure allegedly took place pursuant to the People's continuing duty to do so pursuant to CPL
          § 245.60 (see Point G, Pages 30-36, of the People's Memorandum of Law).

                  Specifically, the People contend that all CPL § 245.20 (1) (k) materials were provided to
         Defendant on August 12, 2022, 6 the photographic and surveillance video exhibits of the Grand
         Jury proceeding were provided to Defendant on February 4, 5, and 20, 2020, and an. email dated
         August 12, 2022 was sent to Defendant which disclosed that the original call was reported by a
         member of the Village of Bronxville Police Department and not a pedestrian, as initially believed
         (see Point G, Page 35, of the People's Memorandum of Law). The People further contend that
         although the search warrant return· has not y~t been provided, they did provide Defendant with "a

         5
           Citing CPL Article 245, Defendant also moves "to invalidate the prior Certificate of Compliance [dated February 4,
         2020 filed in Bronxville Village Court] and Statement of Readiness as illusory for failure of the People to provide the
         grand jury minutes" (see Point G, Page 4, of Defendant's Notice of Motion and Point G, Page 11; of Defendant's
         Memorandum of Law). As local court does not have jurisdiction over felony matters _and Defendant concedes that
         "the People cannot proclaim actual readiness in local court" (see Point G, Page ·11, of Defendant's Memorandum of
         Law), such argument nee~ not be addressed. The Court notes that the Discovery Disclosure Index attached to the
         Certificate'ofCompliance dated August 12, 2022, indicates that the "Grand Jury Testimony" was provided to defense
         counsel via the "PRO Discovery Portal" on "7/13/2020."             ·
         6
           The People state this includes "(I )(k) questionnaires, office memoranda, chi'il suit information, and prior law
         enforcement experience documents" (see PointG, Page 34, of the People's Memorandum of Law).           ·

                                                                  15

[* 15]
         photograph of a warrant receipt on February 4, 2020 and. February 20, 2020," and that all
         photographs related to the Verizon Store burglary that are in the People's possession were also
         provided to Defendant on such dates (see Point G, Page 35, of the People's Memorandum of Law).

                 As to the red box photograph, the· People claim that "they cannot provide a document that
         does not exist," that the Discovery Disclosure Index attached to the People's Certificate of
         Compliance indicates that "defendant cap. inspect the red box upon contacting the assigned
         Assistant District Attorney" and that, "[t]o date, no request for such inspection has been made by
         the defendant" (see Point G, Page 35, of the People's Memorandum of Law). Finally, as to the
         outsta!lding ·discovery on the Yonkers matter, the People aver that they provided "all discovery
         items within their possession ... on August 1O; .2022 and subsequently on September 6, 2022" (see
         Point G, Page 35, of the People's Memorandum of Law). 7

                 Pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1), the People must automatically disclose to defendant "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". (see People
         v Sime, 76 Misc.3d 1107, 1111 956, 959 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2022]; People v Martinez, 75
         Misc3d 1212(A) [Crim Ct, NY County 2022]; People v Darren, 75 Misc3d 1208(A) [Crim Ct, NY
         County 2022]; People v Aquino, 74 Misc3d 1147, U52 [Sup Ct, NY County 2022]; People v
         Rodriguez, 73 Misc3d 411, 413 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2021]) and the statute sets forth a non-
         exhaustive list of items and information that must be disclosed to the defendant as part of the
         People's initial discovery obligation (see People v Deas, 75 Misc3d 190, 193 [Sup Ct, Westchester
         County 2022]; People v Rodriguez, 73 Misc3d at 413; People v Perez, 73 Misc3d 171, 173 [Sup
         Ct; Queens County 2021]; People v Soto, 72 Misc3d 1153, 1155 [Crim Ct, NY County 2021]).
         CPL§ 245.20 (2) further requires the People to "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the
         existence of [such] material or information," and where it exists, to make it available for discovery,
         even if the material is not within their possession, custody, or control (see People v Martinez, 75
         Misc3d 1212(A); People v Darren, 75 Misc3d 1298(A); People v Cajilima, 75 Misc3d 438, 440

         7
           The People note that the additional discovery items included "warrant documents; which were previously provided
         to defendant on August· I 0, 2022; CSU photographs; and a Yonkers Police Department discovery compliance
         checklist" (see Point G, Page 36, of the People's Memorandum of Law).

                                                                16

[* 16]
         [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2022]; People v Williams, 73 Misc3d 1091, 1103-1104 [Sup Ct, Kings
         County 2021]; People v Perez, 73 Misc3d at 174).

                 However, notwithstanding the mandates of CPL § 245.20 (1) and (2), "(n]owhere within
         CPL article 245 ... is there a requirement that the Peopl_e disclose every discovery item under CPL
         245.20 (1) prior to the valid filing of a certificate of compliance. On the contrary, CPL article
         245 ... present( s] a theme emphasizing the importance of good faith efforts by the People, and ·
         reasonableness u·nder the circumstances, as it relates to discovery compliance" (People v Bruni,
         71 Misc3d 913, 917 [County Ct, Albany County 2021]; see People v Leonardo, 15 Misc3d
         1237(A) (Crim Ct, Queens-County 2022]; People v Pierna, 74 Misc3d 1072, 1087-1088 [Crim Ct,
         Bronx County 2022]; People v Barralaga, 7_3 Misc3d 510, 514 [Crim Ct, NY County 2021];
         People v Rodriguez, 73 Misc3d ~t 416-417; People v Knight, 69 Misc3d 546, 552 (Sup Ct, Kings
         County 2020]; People v Erby, 68 Misc3d 625, 633 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2020]; People Askin,    v
         68 Misc3d 372, 378-379 (County Court, Nassau County 2020]).               "Article 245 requires the
         prosecution to proactively disclose qualifying material to defendant and file a 'certification
         of good faith compliance ' prior to stating their readiness for tr_ial" (emphasis added) (People v
         Leonardo, 75 Mi_sc3d 1237(A), citing CPL §. 30.30 (5) and CPL § 245.50 (3)). Consequently,
         numerous courts have . found that belated disclosure should not invalidate· a Certificate of
         Compliance that was made in good faith after the exercise of due diligence (People v Sime, 76
         Misc3d at 1114; People v Rodriguez, 73 Misc3d at 416, citing People v Bruni, 71 Misc3d at 921;
         People v Erby, 68 Misc3d at 633; People v Gonzalez, 68 Misc3d 1213[A] [Sup Ct, Kings County
         2020]; People v Knight, 69 Misc3d at 552; People v Lustig, 68 Misc3d 234, 247 [Sup Ct, Queeris
         County 2020]; People v Randolph, 69 Misc 3d 770, 770 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2020]) and a
         Certificate of Compliance need not be invalidated for· the belated disclosure of discoverable
         material not previously known to the People (see People v Surgick, 73 Misc3d 1212(A] (Albany
         City Ct 2021] or because of "[i]nadvertent errors or omissions" (People v Pondexter, 76 Misc3d
         349, 353 [Crim Ct, NY County 2022], citing People v Nelson, 75 Misc3d 1203[A] [Crim Ct, NY
         County 2022]; People v Rodriguez, 73 Misc3d at 416; People v Moore, 72 Misc3d 903, 907 [Sup
         Ct, Kings County 2021 ]).

                In determining the validity of. the Certificate of Compliance in this case, this Court has ·
         looked at the People's efforts to meet their discovery obligations and finds them sufficient, agreeing

                                                          17

[* 17]
           that "good faith, due diligence, and reasonableness under the circumstances are the touchstones by
           which a certificate of compliance must be evaluated" (People v Marin, 74 Misc3d at 1042, quoting
           . People v Perez, 73 Misc3d at 177; see People v Cajilima, 75 Misc3d at 441; People v Henry, 74
           Misc3d 1230(A) [Sup Ct, Richmond County 2022]; People v Rodriguez; 73 Misc3d at 417; People
                                         '                                                   '

           v Georgiopoulos, 71 Misc3d 1215(A) [Sup Ct, Queens County 2021]). Here, the People have
           outlined the due diligence and good faith efforts that they have undertaken to obtain and. provide
          . the initial and additional discovery materials and information to the defendant. If there is any
           discoverable material or information that remains outstanding, it is not due to a lack of good faith
           effort or due diligence on the part of the People. To the extent that such has not yet been disclosed, •
           should the People ascertain the existence of any of the materials and information itemized in CPL
           § 245.20 (1) through their mandated diligent, good. faith effort to do so or otherwise, they are
           directed to expeditiously disclose the same upon receipt. thereof. If such material or information
           does exist and is missing, disclosed belatedly, or destroyed, this. Court will determine whether a
           sanction should be imposed and, if so, the appropriate remedy .or sanction under the circumstances
           (see CPL § 245.80).
                  Accordingly, for the reasons set forth abov·e, this Court finds that the People's statement
         .. of readiness was not illusory and Defendant's motion seeking 'invalidation of the People's
           Certificate of.Compliance is denied.

                  The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

           Dated: Whit~ Plains, New York
                  November 28, 2022

                                                                 H

                                                            18

[* 18]
         To:   HON. MIRIAM E. ROCAH .
               Westchester County District Attorney
               111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
               White Plains, New York 10601 ·
               Attn: Assistant District Attorney Annmarie Stepancic

               THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF
               WESTCHESTER COUNTY
               Attorney for Defendant Sandro Suarez
               150 Grand Street-Suite 100
               White Plains, New York 10601
               Attn: Ketienne Telemaque, Esq.

                                                            /

                                                      19

[* 19]