By a 5-2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the reinstatement of criminal charges in the case of People v. Henry Fuentes. The case had been dismissed by the Suffolk County District Court in early 2022 after a judge of that court faulted the prosecution for not disclosing an Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) report that “exonerated” a Suffolk County police officer of misconduct.
The underlying case involved a defendant who was alleged to have been drinking and had gotten stuck in a toddler swing behind an abandoned house. The defendant ended up calling 911 for aid. A Suffolk County police officer arrived on scene to help, offered an ambulance, and then even offered a ride home. Upon arriving home, the defendant allegedly asked for his bottle of tequila back. When the police officer refused, the defendant allegedly pushed the officer into the car, took her keys, and jumped into the driver’s seat. The officer was fortunately able to call for backup, who took the defendant into custody.
During the course of the prosecution, the District Attorney’s Office identified a past federal civil lawsuit against the police officer. She, and multiple other officers, had been sued in connection with a 911 response to “a man with a gun.” It was alleged that, after responding to that scene, the officers illegally searched the plaintiff’s home when securing his weapons. In connection with constitutional and statutory disclosure obligations, the information regarding the federal lawsuit was disclosed to the defense, for whatever value it might have provided during cross-examination of the police officer.
The defense, upon receiving this information, thereafter waited five months, until the eve of a pre-trial hearing, before making a request for any IAB records that might exist in connection with the lawsuit. The District Attorney’s Office swiftly produced an Internal Affairs Bureau report, in connection with that civil suit, that exonerated the police officer from any wrongdoing.
Nevertheless, the defense made a motion to dismiss, claiming that the District Attorney’s Office had withheld this information in violation of the defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights. The presiding judge agreed that the prosecution had failed in its discovery obligations under the state statute and dismissed the case.
In 2023, the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts reversed the dismissal and reinstated the charges, but the defendant filed another appeal, to the New York Court of Appeals, and was granted leave.
On October 23, 2025, the Court of Appeals sided with the Suffolk County District Attorney, holding that the DA’s Office provided the necessary information to the defense relating to the incident and rejecting the defense argument that the Internal Affairs records contained additional “impeachment” material beyond what was already disclosed. The Court noted especially that the state’s discovery statute “inserts consideration of evidentiary value into the disclosure requirement.” Having found no such value to the Internal Affairs record, the Court affirmed the reinstatement of charges, allowing the prosecution to move forward in Suffolk County District Court.
“While we are heartened by this meritorious appeal, the near-four year pathway of a misdemeanor prosecution to the highest court in the state over a mind-numbing technical attack just shows how the state’s 2020 so-called discovery ‘reforms’ have tied up valuable prosecution resources and unleashed destabilizing chaos on our criminal justice system,” said Suffolk County District Attorney Ray Tierney. “The fact that the state’s prosecutors are compelled to engage in clerical advocacy more than legal advocacy against a flood of never-ending ‘gotcha’ technicalities, enabled by our state government, is nothing short of a public safety tragedy.”