Christopher Reed v. J. Johnson, Superintendent

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 9, 2025
Docket1:20-cv-07584
StatusUnknown

This text of Christopher Reed v. J. Johnson, Superintendent (Christopher Reed v. J. Johnson, Superintendent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Christopher Reed v. J. Johnson, Superintendent, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X CHRISTOPHER REED, Petitioner, 20-CV-7584 (JLR) (KHP) -against- ORDER

J.JOHNSON, Superintendent, Respondent. -----------------------------------------------------------------X KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge: Petitioner, currently incarcerated at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, initiated this action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On September 3, 2025, the Court requested a letter from Petitioner’s counsel (Ms. Danielle Von Lehman) in his state court action regarding the status of Petitioner’s CPL § 440.10 motion. (ECF No. 67.) On September 29, 2025, the Court received an email containing Ms. Von Lehman’s letter. The letter is attached to this order as Appendix A. In the letter, Ms. Von Lehman states that she has not yet filed the

motion as she was waiting for the prosecution to turn over Petitioner’s case file. On October 8, 2025, the District Attorney filed a letter to the ECF docket (ECF No. 69) indicating, in part, that they have or will turn over the discovery material used at trial “as a courtesy.” (Id. at 2.) The Court agrees with Respondent that there should be no further delay from the date the trial case file is turned over to Ms. Von Lehman and expects it will be turned over within the

next 30 days. Accordingly, the Court will permit the stay to continue for another 60 days to allow production of the file and filing of the motion. If the updated CPL § 440.10 motion is not filed within the next 60 days, this Court will lift the stay and proceed with resolving the habeas petition. If the motion is filed, Petitioner may request an extension of the stay in this action so long as that request is received by December 8, 2025. Either way, the parties shall file a status update by December 8, 2025, which shall include their positions on lifting or extending the stay notwithstanding any pending motion under CPL § 440. The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to mail this order to the Petitioner. The Respondent is respectfully requested to serve this letter upon Ms. Von Lehman by overnight mail on or before October 13, 2025. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York October 9, 2025 ue Uthaine H fake KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge

APPENDIX A NEW(3 Y47O)R2K54, -N0Y83 110007 DVLesq.ny@Gmail.com

September 26, 2025 VIA ECF Honorable Katharine H. Parker United Stated Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 17D New York NY 10007-1312 Re: Christopher Reed v. Johnson, Case No. 20- CV-7584 (JLR) (KHP) Your Honor: I, alongside Matthew Christiana, have been appointed to represent Mr. Christopher Reed in the current New York State post-conviction proceeding. In accordance with Your Honor’s Order, dated September 3, 2025 (ECF No. 67), I am writing to provide you with a status update regarding Mr. Reed’s pending CPL § 440.10 Motion (“440 Motion”). Mr. Reed’s CPL 440 motion seeks vacatur of his conviction on multiple constitutional grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment and misconduct in violation of Brady v. Maryland. While the motion is substantially prepared and nearly final, resolution of certain claims requires a determination of what documents and information were in trial counsel’s possession at the time of trial. Unfortunately, trial counsel resides outside of the country, and despite diligent efforts, I have been unable to establish contact. Accordingly, I have undertaken repeated efforts to obtain the prosecution’s trial file. These efforts have included direct communications with the assigned prosecutor as well as formal FOIL requests to the Bronx District Attorney’s Office. As outlined in the appended, February 2025, I submitted a FOIL request to the DA’s office. After months of delay—and a constructive denial appeal—the DA finally responded on May 13, 2025, advising that the materials must be requested directly from ADA Won and the Bronx Exhibit Coordinator. The next day, I followed that directive and submitted requests to both ADA Won and the Bronx Exhibit Coordinator. Despite multiple follow-ups, the requested file has still not been produced. Most recently, on September 26, 2025, ADA Won informed me that a paralegal will begin reviewing the file at the end of next week. Upon receipt of the prosecution’s trial file, I will promptly finalize and file Mr. Reed’s CPL 440 motion. Should the Bronx District Attorney’s Office produce the file within the next several weeks, I anticipate being in a position to submit the motion on or about December 2025. I remain available to provide any additional information the Court may require and thank the Court for its attention to this matter. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Danielle Von Lehman Danielle Von Lehman, esq. SSSSuuuubbbbjjjjeeeecccctttt:::: FOIL Request - People v. Christopher Reed; Ind. No. 12-2082 DDDDaaaatttteeee:::: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 12:08:35 PM Eastern Standard Time FFFFrrrroooommmm:::: Matthew Christiana TTTToooo:::: foilrequest@bronxda.nyc.gov AAAAttttttttaaaacccchhhhmmmmeeeennnnttttssss::::FOIL request re Bx Ind. 12-2082.pdf Good afternoon, Please find the attached request for records. As you know, N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 89(3)(a) requires an agency to respond to written FOIL requests within five (5) business days of receipt. Therefore, I would appreciate a response as soon as possible, and look forward to hearing from you shortly. Thank you. Kind regards, Matt Christiana -- Matthew Christiana Kopke Christiana & Rastetter LLP 199 Cook Street, Suite 308 Brooklyn, NY 11206 t: (917) 451-9525 f: (347) 315-9815 kcrllp.com Freedom of Information Law Officer Office of the Bronx County District Attorney 198 East 161 Street Bronx, New York 10451 FOIL Unit, 10 Floor (718) 838-7107 Via email: foilrequest@bronxda.nyc.gov Re: People v. Christopher Reed; Ind. No. 12-2082 To Whom It May Concern: As Mr. Christopher Reed’s appointed counsel and in accordance with Brady v. Maryland, 373 US. 83 (1963) and the New York Freedom of Information Law (McKinney’s Public Officers Law § 84), I respectfully request that you forward us a complete copy of the District Attorney’s prosecution file in the above referenced matter. This request includes, but is not limited to:

e Phone records pertaining to: o Katherine Urena; o Christopher Reed e Any and all witness statements; e Any and all notes compiled and created by the Bronx District Attorney’s Office e Any and all photographs; e DA summaries/write-ups; e Any and all files retained by the Bronx District Attorney’s Office relating to the credibility or misconduct of the following NYPD officers from the 46" Precinct: o Lt. Paul McMahon (Tax ID: 899574; o Det. Terence Munnelly (Tax ID: 916925)

I would appreciate your prompt reply to this request. Best Regards,

Matthew W. Christiana, Esq. Matt@kcrllp.com

Brooklyn, NY 11206 t/f: (917) 451-9525 e: office@kcrllp.com

April 29, 2025 VIA EMAIL Bronx District Attorney’s Office foilrequest@bronxda.nyc.gov Re: FOIL request for case and arrest records for Christopher Reed (Ind. No. 12-2082)

To Whom It May Concern:

I hereby appeal the constructive denial of my FOIL request, dated January 23, 2024, and annexed hereto as Exhibit A. The Bronx DA’s officer responded that same day and indicated I would receive a response within 60 business days. Said response is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. Over 60 days has now passed and I have not heard anything regarding my FOIL request. Thus, this constructive denial appeal follows.

An agency’s unreasonable delay in providing responsive records constitutes a constructive denial of a FOIL request. See FOIL § 89(3)(a); Murray v. Matusiak, 247 A.D.2d 303 (1st Dept. 1998); Empire Ctr. For Pub. Policy, Inc. v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lesher v. Hynes
968 N.E.2d 451 (New York Court of Appeals, 2012)
Sideri v. Office of the District Attorney
243 A.D.2d 423 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Murray v. Matusiak
247 A.D.2d 303 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Whitehead v. Morgenthau
146 Misc. 2d 806 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Christopher Reed v. J. Johnson, Superintendent, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-reed-v-j-johnson-superintendent-nysd-2025.