Defendant is charged with one count of menacing in the second degree (Penal Law §120.14 [1]), and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law §265.01 [2]). He now moves for an order dismissing the count of menacing in the second degree as facially insufficient. The People oppose the motion. For the reasons below, defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. BACKGROUND The controlling accusatory instrument, a superseding information filed with the court on May 2, 2019, alleges, in relevant part, that on or about January 25, 2019, at about 4:45 p.m., in front of 244 West 64 Street, in the County and State of New York, Detective Ronald Bronaugh, observed defendant via video surveillance, “on a sidewalk with multiple people around, swing what appeared to be a metal knife over eight inches in length [and] point the knife in the direction of an individual while walking towards that individual.” Detective Bronaugh further states that upon showing the relevant video surveillance to defendant, “he stated in substance that he was the person in the video and that he did possess a knife and brass knuckles.” On April 1, 2019, defendant was arrested in connection with this alleged incident, and arraigned on the original accusatory instrument. The original accusatory instrument contained hearsay information from a witness who informed Detective Bronaugh that defendant had advanced toward him holding a metal knife with a long blade and swinging it around, causing him to fear for his physical safety. Accordingly, the arraignment court adjourned to Part C on April 29, 2019, for the People to file a supporting deposition. On April 29, 2019, the People failed to file a supporting deposition. The court adjourned the case to July 3, 2019, for the People to file a supporting deposition. Meanwhile, on May 2, 2019, the People filed a superseding information and certificate of readiness off-calendar. On July 3, 2019, according to the minutes of the proceedings, the People stated to the court that they had “filed a supporting deposition as well as Certificate of Readiness on May 2nd.” The court stamped the action sheet that a supporting deposition and certificate of readiness had been filed on May 2, instead of acknowledging receipt of the superseding information. The court set a motion schedule, and adjourned the case to July 31, 2019, for response and decision. Defendant was not arraigned on the superseding information. Eight additional court appearances followed on July 31, August 28, September 18, October 10, October 25, and October 29, 2019. During this time, defendant brought an omnibus motion, the court had ordered suppression hearings, and the case had been adjourned multiple times for hearings and trial. On November 15, 2019, defendant made the instant motion to dismiss the superseding instrument based on facial insufficiency grounds. This court directed the People to serve and file their response off-calendar and adjourned the case to December 19, 2019 for decision. Meanwhile, this court requested the transcript of the proceedings on May 2, 2019, to determine whether defendant had ever been arraigned on the superseding information, which delayed a decision on the instant motion to dismiss. On December 19, 2019, defendant was arraigned on the superseding information. The case was adjourned again to January 16, 2020 for decision. DISCUSSION Pursuant to CPL 100.40 (1), an information is sufficient on its face when, among other things: (1) the allegations provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged, and (2) the non-hearsay allegations establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof. “‘Reasonable cause’ exists when ‘evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances’ adequate ‘to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that’ defendant committed the offense” (People v. Andujar, 30 NY3d 160, 168 [2017], citing CPL 70.10 [2]). The court must consider all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts set forth in the accusatory instrument (see People v. Jackson, 18 NY3d 738, 747 [2012]). The requirement that a misdemeanor information set forth nonhearsay allegations is known as “the prima facie case requirement” (People v. Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228-29 [2009] [citing People v. Henderson, 92 NY2d 677, 679 (1999) and CPL 100.40 (1) (c)]). An information that fails to allege a complete element of the charged offense is jurisdictionally defective (Kalin, 12 NY3d at 228-229). However, “the prima facie requirement is not the same as the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial” (Henderson, 92 NY2d at 680). The factual part of the accusatory instrument must allege “facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges” (CPL 100.15 [3]; People v. Dumas, 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]). “So long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient 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]). As relevant here, Penal Law §120.14 (1) states, “A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when: 1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm.” Defendant argues that accusatory instrument failed to set forth the elements that: (1) defendant intended to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury and (2) defendant displayed a deadly weapon (affirmation of defendant’s counsel
