*1 The defendant is charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration in Second Degree in violation of PL §195.05, Disorderly Conduct in violation of PL §§240.20(1), (2) and (7), and*2
Harassment in the Second Degree in violation of PL §240.26(1). By motion filed on November 14, 2017, the defendant moves to dismiss all charges for facial insufficiency. On or about December 10, 2017, the People filed a response, and on December 14, 2017, the People filed a reply. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss the PL §195.05 and PL §240.26(1) charges is DENIED. The motion to dismiss the PL §§240.20(1), (2) and (7) charges is GRANTED.I. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FACIAL INSUFFICIENCYLegal Sufficiency StandardAn information is facially sufficient if it alleges nonhearsay factual allegations of an evidentiary nature which, if true, provide reasonable cause for every element of the offense(s) charged and the defendant’s commission thereof (see CPL 100.15(3); 100.40(1)(b) and (c); People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 137 [1987]; People v. Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 229 [2009]). The “reasonable cause” burden is met where:evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it(CPL §70.10 (2)). Failure to establish a prima facie case according to these standards creates a jurisdictional defect to the criminal action, thus warranting dismissal of the accusatory instrument (see Alejandro, 70 NY2d at 137; Kalin, 12 NY3d at 229).When reviewing an accusatory instrument for facial sufficiency, the court must give the factual allegations a “fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading” (People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]; Kalin, 12 NY3d at 225). The instrument must “factually describe the elements of the crime and the particular acts of the defendant constituting its commission” in sufficient detail to satisfy the requirements of due process and double jeopardy, that is, to afford the accused a fair opportunity to prepare a defense and avoid being charged twice with the same offense (Casey, 95 NY2d at 360; Kalin, 12 NY3d at 225).
