Our client was charged with aggravated harassment and violation of a full stay-away, no-contact order of protection. These misdemeanor charges had potential long-term consequences to their record and personal life. Prosecutors initially offered a violation-level harassment disposition that would have remained permanently on the client’s record.

Under New York’s Criminal Procedure Law, including CPL 30.30 and CPL 245, prosecutors must turn over mandatory discovery within specified time periods and may only certify their readiness for trial after exercising due diligence to disclose all materials in their possession or control. In this case, the prosecution had subpoenaed and obtained the complaining witness’s phone records, which were central to their theory of repeated contact in violation of the order of protection.

Through careful review of the case file and case timeline, we discovered that the phone records had been in the prosecution’s possession for more than a month before they were provided to the defense. Despite this, the prosecution had already filed a certificate of compliance and statement of readiness asserting that all discovery obligations had been met. The prosecution initially argued that because the records were obtained by subpoena, they were not yet “in their possession” at the time of certification.

We challenged this by documenting when the records were actually received and demonstrating that they constituted mandatory discovery under CPL 245. We argued that the prosecution had not exercised due diligence in timely disclosing these materials and that their earlier certification of compliance and readiness was improper. On that basis, we filed a motion seeking sanctions and potential dismissal under the applicable speedy-trial and discovery provisions.

Confronted with the risk that the court could grant dismissal or other significant relief, the prosecution agreed to resolve the case with an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). Ordinarily, such offers in similar matters may run for six months, but we successfully negotiated a shorter three-month period. After the three-month term expired without any new allegations, the case was dismissed as a matter of law, and the order of protection was terminated.

While every case depends on its specific facts and applicable law, and no outcome can be guaranteed, this matter illustrates how close attention to discovery timelines, certification requirements under CPL 30.30 and 245, and the actual flow of materials in the prosecutor’s file can create leverage to secure a more favorable resolution for a client facing serious allegations and an active order of protection.