People v. Haggan
Docket Ind No. 74715/24|Appeal No. 6442|Case No. 2025-01779|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02462
- Docket numbers
- Ind No74715/24Appeal No6442Case No2025-01779
Appeal from an order granting defendant's CPL 30.30 motion to dismiss the indictment in New York County Supreme Court
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court's order that had dismissed the indictment against defendant Diamond Haggan under CPL 30.30. The People had filed a certificate of compliance for discovery and the court held that the prosecution was not required to obtain third-party employment and medical records as part of initial automatic discovery, so withholding them did not invalidate the certificate. Although the People improperly withheld a victim entity report as duplicative, there was no bad faith and the People had otherwise met their discovery obligations, so the dismissal was improper and the indictment was reinstated for further proceedings.
Issues Decided
- Whether the prosecution's certificate of compliance was invalid because it did not include third-party employment and medical records not in the prosecution's possession, custody, or control
- Whether withholding a victim entity report as duplicative warranted invalidation of the certificate of compliance and dismissal under CPL 30.30
- Whether the People exercised due diligence and good faith in complying with automatic discovery rules such that they were ready for trial within CPL 30.30 time limits
Court's Reasoning
The court explained that the initial automatic discovery obligation under CPL 245.20(1) covers only materials in the prosecution's possession, custody, or control, and third-party employment and medical records fall under subdivision (2) and are not automatically required. A certificate of compliance under CPL 245.50(1) requires diligent, good-faith efforts to obtain materials covered by subdivision (1); it does not turn on disclosure of third-party records. Although the entity report should have been disclosed, there was no showing of bad faith and the People had otherwise provided voluminous records and showed due diligence, so the certificate was valid and the CPL 30.30 dismissal was improper.
Authorities Cited
- CPL 245.20
- CPL 245.50(1)
- People v Bay41 NY3d 200 (2023)
- People v Walker232 AD3d 1214 (4th Dept 2024), lv denied 42 NY3d 1082 (2025)
- Cooperman225 AD3d 1216 (4th Dept 2024)
Parties
- Appellant
- The People of the State of New York
- Respondent
- Diamond Haggan
- Judge
- Laura A. Ward
- Attorney
- Alvin L. Bragg, Jr.
- Attorney
- Jenay Nurse Guilford
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Certificate of compliance filed
- 2024-10-31
- Supreme Court order granting CPL 30.30 motion entered
- 2025-02-28
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Proceed to trial
The prosecution and defense should prepare for further proceedings in Supreme Court now that the indictment is reinstated.
- 2
Confirm outstanding discovery
Defense counsel should confer with the People about any remaining discovery deficiencies and, if necessary, seek the trial court's help rather than moving to dismiss prematurely.
- 3
Consider interlocutory remedies
Either party that believes discovery obligations remain unmet can seek appropriate relief (e.g., a disclosure order) from the trial court on the record.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the indictment and reinstated the charges, finding the prosecution's discovery certificate valid and that the People were ready for trial within statutory time limits.
- Why weren't the victim's employment and medical records required in initial discovery?
- Because those records were held by third parties and were not in the prosecution's possession, custody, or control, they fell outside the automatic initial-discovery obligation.
- Did the People do anything wrong by withholding an entity report?
- The court found the entity report was improperly withheld as duplicative but there was no showing of bad faith, so that withholding did not justify dismissing the indictment.
- What happens next in the case?
- The indictment was reinstated and the case is remitted to the trial court for further proceedings toward trial.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Haggan - 2026 NY Slip Op 02462 People v Haggan 2026 NY Slip Op 02462 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Diamond Haggan, Defendant- Respondent. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Ind No. 74715/24|Appeal No. 6442|Case No. 2025-01779| Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Cecelia C. Chang of counsel), for appellant. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Nusayba Hammad of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), entered on or about February 28, 2025, which granted defendant's CPL 30.30 motion to dismiss the indictment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion denied, the indictment reinstated, and the matter remitted for further proceedings. Initially, the People were not required, as part of their initial discovery obligation under the automatic discovery rules at CPL 245.20(1) to obtain and disclose employment and medical records that were not "in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control" because these records fall under CPL 245.20(2), as they were in the possession and control of third parties not under the prosecution's direction or control ( see former CPL 245.20[1],[2] [repealed L 2025, ch 56, part LL, § 2, eff August 7, 2025]; see L 2025, ch 56, part LL, §§ 1-8). CPL 245.50(1) directs that a certificate of compliance (COC) be filed when the People have made diligent, good faith efforts "to obtain and provide the discovery required by subdivision one of section 245.20." This section does not mention subdivision two ( People v Walker , 232 AD3d 1214, 1215-1216 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1082 [2025] [records failed to "meet the possessory prong required to prompt [the People's] initial discovery obligation" under CPL 245.20(1)]). Thus, the validity of the People's COC did not turn on the People's disclosure of these records. The People were required to disclose the victim's entity report under CPL 245.20(1) but improperly withheld it as duplicative. Nevertheless, defendant does not argue, and Supreme Court did not find that the entity report was withheld in bad faith. Accordingly, withholding the entity report did not warrant invalidating the COC and dismissing the indictment under CPL 30.30 in light of, among other things, the People's disclosure of voluminous records and the apparently innocuous nature of the entity report ( see Cooperman , 225 AD3d 1216, 1220 [4th Dept 2024]; see People v Bay , 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]). Moreover, defendant did not confer with the People about any deficiency in disclosure before making his motion to invalidate the COC. The People established that they exercised due diligence and good-faith efforts in complying with their discovery obligations, and, thus, their certificate of compliance, filed on October 31, 2024, was valid ( see People v Bay , 41 NY3d 200, 209-212 [2023]). Accordingly, Supreme Court improperly invalidated the People's October 31, 2024 certificate of compliance based on their alleged failure to exercise due diligence in attempting to obtain these records. As a result, the People were ready for trial within the statutorily allotted time ( see CPL 30.30[1][a]), and Supreme Court should have denied the CPL 30.30 motion to dismiss the indictment. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026