How New York’s Certificate of Compliance Controls Whether Your Criminal Case Gets Dismissed
If you are facing criminal charges in New York — or you have a loved one who is — there is one document that determines whether the prosecution can legally move forward with your case. It is called the Certificate of Compliance, and most people have never heard of it.
That’s a problem, because an invalid Certificate of Compliance can stop a prosecution cold. Cases that should have gone to trial have been dismissed outright because of it. And courts across New York are making these rulings right now, in 2024 and 2025.
This article explains exactly what the Certificate of Compliance is, how it connects to your right to a speedy trial, and what happens when the prosecution gets it wrong.
The Core Rule: No Valid COC Means the Prosecution Is Not Ready for Trial
Start here, because everything else flows from this one principle.
Under CPL 245.50(3), the prosecution cannot be deemed ready for trial until it has filed a valid Certificate of Compliance (COC). This is not a suggestion. It is the law. It does not matter what the prosecutor says in court. It does not matter if they stand up and announce they are ready. Without a valid COC on file, that announcement is legally worthless.
Courts call a readiness statement made without a valid COC “illusory.” An illusory statement of readiness does not stop the speedy trial clock. Time continues to run against the prosecution as if they never said a word.
This single rule — COC validity equals readiness — is the enforcement engine behind New York’s discovery reform. It is why the Certificate of Compliance matters so much, and why its time limits can end a case entirely.
What Is a Certificate of Compliance?
A Certificate of Compliance is a formal document the prosecution files with the court certifying that they have:
- Exercised due diligence — meaning they actively worked to locate all required evidence
- Acted in good faith — meaning they weren’t cutting corners or concealing anything
- Disclosed all materials required under CPL 245.20 to the defense
The list of required materials under CPL 245.20 is extensive. It includes police reports, body-worn camera footage, 911 calls and radio runs, witness statements, laboratory results, search warrant materials, photographs, arrest records, officer memo books, evidence audit logs, and impeachment material — meaning any information that could be used to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including police officers.
The COC is the prosecution’s sworn representation to the court: “We have turned over everything the law requires. We are ready to proceed.”
When that representation is false — or made carelessly — the case can fall apart.
The Speedy Trial Clock: Why a Bad COC Gets Cases Dismissed
New York’s speedy trial law, CPL 30.30, gives the prosecution a hard deadline to declare trial readiness. Those deadlines, measured from the date charges are filed, are:
If the prosecution exceeds its deadline, the defendant’s attorney files a CPL 30.30 Motion to Dismiss and the court must throw the case out.
Here is how the COC fits into that mechanism:
- The prosecution files a COC and simultaneously files a Statement of Readiness (SOR) — their declaration that they are ready for trial
- Filing a valid COC and SOR stops the speedy trial clock
- If the COC is later found to be invalid, the clock is treated as if it never stopped
- All the time between the invalid COC and a valid replacement gets charged back to the prosecution
- If the total chargeable time exceeds the legal limit, the case is dismissed
This is not theory. New York courts are issuing these dismissals regularly.
Real Cases: When the COC Failed and Cases Were Dismissed
People v. Kents, 2025 NY Slip Op 50880(U) (Crim. Ct. Nassau County, May 30, 2025)
Citation: 2025 NY Slip Op 50880(U)
The defendant was charged with assault in the third degree — a Class A misdemeanor with a 90-day speedy trial limit. The prosecution filed its COC on February 11, 2025, at which point 88 days were already charged. The defense challenged the COC, and the court agreed it was improper because required materials had not been disclosed. Since the COC was invalid, the speedy trial clock continued running. By the time a supplemental filing was made on February 19, 2025, 96 days had elapsed — past the 90-day limit. The case was dismissed.
Eight days was the difference. Eight days that the prosecution thought the clock was stopped, but wasn’t.
People v. Holly, 2025 NY Slip Op 50448(U) (Crim. Ct. Bronx County, Apr. 7, 2025)
Citation: 2025 NY Slip Op 50448(U)
Another Class A misdemeanor. The prosecution filed a COC and a supplemental COC, both of which the court found invalid. Among the missing items: witness contact information, body-worn camera footage, BWC metadata, and evidence audit logs — materials the prosecution later admitted they had simply forgotten to disclose. The court found the COC and supplemental COC were invalid, the accompanying statements of readiness were illusory, and with more than 90 days chargeable to the People, the motion to dismiss was granted.
People v. Ernst, 2025 NY Slip Op 02291 (App. Div. 4th Dep’t, Apr. 2025)
Citation: 2025 NY Slip Op 02291
This was a felony case. The prosecution sent a single letter to a police department requesting a welfare-check report and body-worn camera footage, then never followed up when it received no response. The Appellate Division found that despite being aware of the welfare check, which directly related to an issue upon which the prosecution had presented grand jury testimony, the People failed to undertake the requisite efforts to ascertain the existence of and obtain the relevant materials. The COC was invalid, the speedy trial clock had run past six months, and the indictment was dismissed.
One letter. No follow-up. That was enough to sink a felony case.
What Makes a COC Invalid: The Due Diligence Standard
The central question courts ask when a COC is challenged is whether the prosecution exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to find and turn over all discoverable material. This standard comes from the controlling Court of Appeals decision People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200 (2023) — read the full opinion here — which every New York court now applies.
Several principles from Bay and the cases that followed it are critical to understand:
Good faith alone is not enough. The statute does not require or anticipate a “perfect prosecutor,” but good faith compliance with discovery obligations alone will not cure a lack of diligence. A prosecutor who is sincerely trying but not working hard enough can still have their COC invalidated.
A supplemental COC cannot fix a defective original. A subsequent filing of a supplemental certificate of compliance cannot cure a discovery failure where the People did not exercise due diligence before the initial certificate was filed. Once the original COC is found invalid, the damage to the speedy trial clock is already done. Filing supplemental material after getting caught does not reset the clock.
No prejudice required for dismissal. This surprises many people. When a certificate of compliance is found to be invalid for a lack of due diligence, a defendant does not need to demonstrate prejudice to obtain a speedy trial dismissal. The defense doesn’t have to prove the missing evidence would have helped them. Invalid COC plus exceeded time limit equals dismissal, period.
Get Todd A. Spodek’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Courts look at the totality of the effort. Under CPL 245.50(5), no single factor is automatically decisive. Courts weigh the prosecutor’s actual efforts to locate evidence, the volume of what was provided versus what was missing, the complexity of the case, whether the prosecutor knew the missing material existed, the explanation for any gap, how quickly the prosecutor responded when alerted to missing items, whether the omission was self-reported, and whether the late disclosure was trivial or significant.
The Statement of Readiness: The Document That Travels With the COC
The COC always travels alongside a Statement of Readiness (SOR) — the formal declaration to the court that the prosecution is ready for trial. These two documents are legally inseparable.
Under CPL 30.30(5), a statement of trial readiness “must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of section 245.” This means the COC is not optional paperwork that can come later — it must exist before or with the SOR for the readiness declaration to have any legal effect.
If the prosecution files an SOR without a valid COC, the SOR is illusory. The speedy trial clock keeps running. Courts have held this repeatedly, even when the prosecution genuinely believed its COC was sufficient.
How the Clock Gets Charged: What Time Counts Against the Prosecution
Not every day between arraignment and trial counts against the prosecution. CPL 30.30 allows certain periods to be “excluded” from the count — time that doesn’t run against them. Common exclusions include:
- Time attributable to defense adjournments — when defense counsel asks for more time
- Time during pending motion practice — when a court is deciding motions
- Time when the defendant is unavailable — such as absconding or being held elsewhere
- Time during certain plea negotiations
The clock does not stop simply because the prosecution announces it is ready. That announcement is only legally effective if the COC filed alongside it is valid.
Here is the dangerous part: if a COC is later found defective, all the time from its invalid filing until a valid replacement gets added back as chargeable time. Time the prosecution thought was frozen suddenly unfreezes — retroactively. This is how cases that appear comfortably within the time limit can abruptly exceed it.
How Cases Blow Up: A Step-by-Step Example
Here is how a typical dismissal unfolds in a Class A misdemeanor case:
- Day 1: Defendant arraigned. 90-day speedy trial clock begins.
- Day 35: Prosecution files COC and SOR. Clock appears to stop. 35 days charged.
- Day 60: Defense reviews discovery and finds that body-worn camera footage, officer memo books, and evidence audit logs were never turned over. Defense counsel sends a conferral email to the prosecutor.
- Day 67: Prosecution responds, turns over some items, files a supplemental COC.
- Day 78: Defense files a motion to invalidate the original COC.
- Court hearing: Court finds the original COC was invalid — the missing materials were standard items that a diligent prosecutor would have located and disclosed. The supplemental COC cannot cure the original defect.
- Ruling: The speedy trial clock never legally stopped on Day 35. All time from Day 35 forward is chargeable. Total chargeable time: 67+ days — past the 90-day limit once the full period is calculated. Case dismissed.
Variations of this scenario play out in New York courtrooms every week.
When the Prosecution Files Right at the Deadline: How Close Is Too Close?
In People v. Coppola, 2025 NY Slip Op 50983(U) (read here), the prosecution filed its COC and Statement of Readiness on the 90th day — the absolute last day of the misdemeanor limit. The defense argued the COC was invalid. The court found it valid, charged exactly 90 days, and denied the motion to dismiss.
This shows that filing at the last possible moment is not automatically fatal. What matters is whether the COC, whenever it is filed, reflects genuine due diligence. A COC filed on Day 90 and found valid is better than a COC filed on Day 35 and found invalid.
But it also shows how razor-thin the margins can be. One more chargeable day — one more finding that the COC wasn’t quite valid — and the result reverses.
When Dismissal Isn’t the Outcome But the COC Still Hurts the Prosecution
Even when the speedy trial clock hasn’t run out, an invalid or incomplete COC has real consequences. Under CPL 245.80, courts have a range of sanctions available for discovery violations:
- Preclusion of evidence — the prosecution may be barred from using specific items at trial, including potentially the defendant’s own statements
- Adverse jury instructions — the jury can be told to draw a negative inference against the prosecution for the missing evidence
- Dismissal — available as a last resort when no lesser remedy would suffice
In People v. Roman, 2025 NY Slip Op 50132(U) (read here), the court declined to dismiss but found the prosecution had failed to exercise due diligence regarding certain reports. The court ordered CPL 245.80 sanctions — including a recommendation that the defendant’s own statement be precluded from trial entirely. Losing the ability to use the defendant’s statement can effectively destroy a prosecution’s case even without dismissal.
The 35-Day Window to Challenge a COC
Once the prosecution files and serves a COC, the defense has 35 days to formally challenge it under CPL 245.50(4). Before filing a motion, defense counsel must attempt to resolve the dispute directly with the prosecution — by email, phone, or any reasonable means — and certify that those good-faith efforts failed.
This conference requirement matters. Courts have denied challenges where the defense skipped the conferral step. The law expects the parties to try to resolve it first.
The 35-day window can be extended for good cause. Challenges can also be brought after the window closes if based on a material change in circumstances — for instance, if new missing evidence surfaces that wasn’t known when the 35 days ran. But the baseline is strict, and defense attorneys who aren’t tracking the COC from day one risk letting the window close.
The Bottom Line for Defendants and Their Families
The Certificate of Compliance is the single most powerful procedural checkpoint in a New York criminal case, and most defendants never know it exists until it is too late to use it.
Here is what you need to understand:
The prosecution cannot be trial-ready without a valid COC. Any readiness announcement before a proper COC is filed is legally meaningless and does not stop the speedy trial clock.
A supplemental COC cannot fix an original that lacked due diligence. The time already charged does not disappear because the prosecution later turned over what they missed.
You do not have to prove the missing evidence would have helped you. If the COC was invalid and the deadline has passed, the dismissal is mandatory.
The 35-day challenge window is strict. A defense attorney who isn’t actively reviewing every item of discovery for completeness — starting from arraignment — risks missing the window entirely.
This is happening in New York courts right now. Cases at every level, from misdemeanors to felonies, are being dismissed because prosecutors filed COCs without meeting the due diligence standard the law requires.
If you have a case pending, the question to ask your attorney isn’t just “what’s the next court date?” It is: “Has the prosecution filed a Certificate of Compliance, is it valid, and have we accounted for every item they were required to turn over?”
That question alone could change how your case ends.
Quick Reference: COC and Speedy Trial at a Glance
