I'm just leaning into the username here.

So the vast majority, if not essentially all, of these new discovery dismissals are because of the intersection of discovery and statutory speedy trial pretrial, which mandates dismissal because you were never ready. This was an in trial motion, meaning you have alternative remedies such as adverse inference, mistrial, etc.

I am pretty sure the consented nature here, plus the dinging of the titled prosecutor, means something more than the normal CPL 245 bs happened here.

I agree generally, but this wasn't a line ADA. It was the deputy chief of the police accountability unit, who was then stripped of her title. If any case had the resources behind it, it was this one.

The fact the office consented to defendant's motion to dismiss, rather than oppose and try appealing the dismissal, leads me to believe that it's closer to a Brady/Rosario issue rather than the new discovery reforms, or if it was the reforms a very egregious violation to the point of perceived willfulness.

We all mess up sometimes, amirite?