New York criminal cases typically move through a set of early stages. Some of these stages include arrest, arraignment, conferences, discovery, motions, and in some cases, trial and then appeals. A crucial part of the criminal process includes discovery. 

CPL Article 245 governs discovery in N.Y. Recent changes to CPL article 245 affect various aspects of the discovery process, and these amendments can affect a case from the outset. Further, violations of discovery rules can create opportunities for defense teams. However, criminal lawyers need to spot issues early and clearly, and present a compelling, viable objection. 

If you have been arrested, accused, or charged with a crime, you shouldn’t have to go through the process alone. Contact an experienced New York criminal defense attorney at the Brill Legal Group, P.C. today to learn about your options. 

What is Discovery Law?

Recent changes to New York’s discovery law address due diligence, time limits, and motions. For example, the amendments do a few important things:

• ​Requiring courts to focus on whether the prosecution acted with due diligence and good faith;
• Requiring certificate challenges to be raised by motion within 35 days;
• They direct the parties to confer in good faith before filing motions; and
• Direct courts to consider the totality of the prosecution’s efforts.

These changes can impact the trajectory of a NY criminal case. 

What is a Certificate of Compliance?

N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 245.50(1) governs the certificate of compliance. This is the filing the prosecution makes after it has exercised due diligence, acted in good faith, made reasonable inquiries, and disclosed discoverable evidence. 

Moreover, the statute requires the prosecution to identify items that were required to be disclosed but could not. Essentially, the certificate tells the court and the defense that the prosecution believes it has met its discovery obligations well enough to proceed.

Under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 245.50(3), the prosecution generally is not deemed ready for trial under CPL 30.30 until it has filed a valid certificate of compliance. That connection between discovery and readiness remains a major pressure point in both misdemeanor and felony cases.

What is the 35-Day Challenge Window NYC?

Under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 245.50(4), challenges to the validity of a certificate of compliance or supplemental certificate generally must be raised by motion within 35 days of service when the prosecution has already filed an indictment or information (see § 245.50(4)(b)(i)). 

Note that § 245.50(4)(c) separately requires that sufficiency challenges be addressed by motion ‘as soon as practicable,’ and preserves the right to make further challenges. A court may extend the 35-day period for good cause shown, and challenges may be brought after expiration of the period where based on a material change in circumstances.

Under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 245.50(4)(b), a party that becomes aware of a potential defect or deficiency in a certificate of compliance shall notify or alert the opposing party as soon as practicable. Under § 245.50(4)(c), challenges to the sufficiency of a certificate of compliance shall then be addressed by motion as soon as practicable, and nothing in the section waives a party’s right to make further challenges, including a motion pursuant to CPL § 30.30.

Records need to be checked promptly, missing items flagged quickly, and the theory behind any challenge needs to be specific. A late argument may still be possible in limited circumstances, though the safest course is to treat discovery deadlines as immediate and serious.

What Due Diligence Means Under the New NYC Law

The statute now provides courts with a clear framework for assessing due diligence. Under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 245.50(5), the court must look at the totality of the party’s efforts rather than evaluate compliance item by item. 

The law lists factors such as the efforts made, the volume of discovery provided and still outstanding, the complexity of the case, the explanation for any lapse, how the prosecution responded when alerted to a problem, whether the omission was corrected, and whether the delay prejudiced the defense or impaired trial preparation.

That standard can cut both ways. In one case, it may help the prosecution preserve a certificate despite a late disclosure. In another, it may give the defense a stronger record for relief when the missing material was significant, avoidable, or harmful to case preparation. A careful review of prejudice still matters. So does a clear record.

​Contact a NYC Criminal Defense Lawyer at the Brill Legal Group Today

If you are facing charges in New York City or on Long Island, contact the Brill Legal Group at (212) 233-4141 or visit the firm’s contact page to request a consultation. The Brill Legal Group handles misdemeanor and felony matters across New York City, Nassau County, and Suffolk County, with offices in Manhattan, Hempstead, and Hauppauge.

FAQs About NYC Criminal Discovery Changes