The following papers have been considered by the Court on this motion Papers Numbered Notice of Omnibus Motion 1 Affirmation in Opposition of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 2 Defendant is charged in an information with Petit Larceny (Penal Law ["PL"] §155.25), arising from an incident that allegedly occurred on or about March 9, 2019, at approximately 8:10 P.M., at the Lady Foot Locker located at 630 Old Country Road in East Garden City, New York. Defendant’s omnibus motion is determined as follows. Initially, defendant seeks to dismiss the accusatory instrument as facially insufficient. An information is sufficient on its face when 1) it substantially conforms to the requirements of CPL 100.15; 2) the factual allegations contained within it, along with any supporting depositions, provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the charged offense; and 3) it alleges non-hearsay facts of an evidentiary-nature establishing, if true, each element of the charged offense and the defendant’s commission of it (CPL 100.40[1]; People v. Vonancken, 27 Misc 3d 132[A] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]). In considering a motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency, the court must view the allegations in the light most favorable to the People (People v. Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 114 [1986]). Furthermore, the court’s review is limited to determining whether or not the allegations, as stated in the information, establish the existence of a prima facie case, even if those facts would not be legally sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (id.; People v. Henderson, 92 NY2d 677 [1999]). Where the allegations contained in the information give an accused sufficient notice to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading (People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]). Here, defendant is charged with Petit Larceny, which is defined under PL§155.25, as stealing property. “A person steals property…when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to [her]self…[s]he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property” from its owner (PL §155.05[1]). Relying upon People v. Allison, 21 Misc 3d 1108(A) (Nassau Dist Ct 2008), defense counsel argues that the allegations contained in the complainant’s supporting deposition are hearsay, as her statements are based solely upon her viewing of a surveillance video. This court, however, finds the defense’s contentions and the analysis found in Allison unpersuasive. Instead, this court agrees with “the line of cases which hold that a complainant’s statement of what he or she viewed on a videotape is not hearsay” (People v. Ogando, 64 Misc 3d 310 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2019]; see People v. West, 41 Misc 3d 542 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2013]; People v. Giarraputo, 37 Misc 3d 486 [Crim Ct. Richmond County 2012]). Thus, upon review of the accusatory instrument and the annexed supporting deposition of the complainant, this court determines that the factual allegations contained within them are sufficient, as they contain non-hearsay allegations that support every element of the offense charged and defendant’s commission of them (see CPL 100.40[1]; People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of Petit Larceny as facially deficient, is denied. Turning to defendant’s motion for court-ordered discovery, same is denied. Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law contemplates that defendant will request discovery prior to seeking an order directing same. Here, defendant’s failure to submit allegations or proof that a previous discovery demand was made prior to making this motion defeats his request at has (CPL 240.20). The the court notes, however, that the People have annexed information regarding MDTs/911 calls relevant to this case to their opposition papers as Exhibit 1. With respect to defendant’s request for witness information and statements, same is also denied, as the defense has failed to demonstrate any special circumstance warranting such disclosure at this time (see CPL 240.20[1]; People v. Pacheco, 38 AD3d 686 [2d Dept 2007]). The People are, however, reminded of their continuing obligations under Brady v. Maryland. 373 US 83 (1963), and its progeny. A Sandoval hearing will be held on the eve of trial, when the People will comply with CPL 240.43. However, a Molineux hearing is denied, in the absence of notice by the People that they intend to offer any such evidence on their direct case at trial. Finally, defendant’s attempt to reserve the right to make further motions is denied, as premature (CPL 255.20[2],[3]). So Ordered. Dated: December 17, 2019
