Defendant is charged with one count of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree (Penal Law §240.50 [4]). In this omnibus motion, she moves for an order dismissing the accusatory instrument as facially insufficient, precluding evidence or granting a hearing, and compelling discovery. The People oppose the motion. For the reasons below, the branch of defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument as facially insufficient is DENIED. The branch of her motion to preclude evidence and request pretrial hearings is referred to the trial court. The branch of her motion to compel the People to provide a bill of particulars is DENIED as moot, but defendant is granted the right to make further motions. BACKGROUND The accusatory instrument alleges in relevant part, that on or about April 5, 2019, at about 6:29 p.m., outside of 656 9th Avenue, in the County and State of New York, defendant anonymously telephoned the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR) to report that C.K. and her husband abused and neglected their children. The recorded call allegedly stated, in sum and substance, that the caller “lives at [street address omitted] in Manhattan and that one of her neighbors, [B.B.], who lives with his wife [C.K.] and their children, might be selling and using marijuana in the apartment and that [B.B.]‘s children, M[.]and J[.], ages 9 and 10, are occasionally observed in the hallway unsupervised.” According to the accusatory instrument, C.K. was appointed to represent defendant’s minor child in an abuse and neglect proceeding brought against defendant in Family Court, Kings County. C.K. stated that she has two ten-year old twins, M. and J., and claimed that she has never mentioned the names of her own children to defendant, or in front of defendant. However, on one occasion, defendant allegedly approached C.K. and asked her, “How are M[.] and J[.]?” SCR allegedly sent the report of abuse and neglect of C.K.’s children to the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS). Child protective specialists allegedly “visited the subject address on several occasions, interviewed [B.B.] and [C.K.], spoke to M[.] and J[.] on numerous occasions and determined the above allegations to be unfounded.” An investigation of phone records traced the anonymous phone call to SCR to a payphone located at 656 9th Avenue in Manhattan. Defendant allegedly lives five blocks from that payphone. Defendant’s husband allegedly identified defendant’s voice on a recording of the call.1 Defendant was arrested and arraigned on October 29, 2019. No notices were given at her arraignment, and the People filed supporting depositions for all of the informants. Accordingly, the court deemed the accusatory instrument an information, set a motion schedule, and adjourned the case to December 2, 2019, for response and decision. Defendant filed this omnibus motion on November 19, 2019. On the adjourn date, the People filed their response, a voluntary disclosure form (VDF), and served the same on defendant. The court adjourned the case to January 13, 2020, for decision on defendant’s motion. On December 6, 2019, defendant filed his reply. DISCUSSION I. Dismissal for Facial Insufficiency 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” (People v. Henderson, 92 NY2d at 680). “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]). Penal Law §240.50 (4) (a) states, in relevant part, that: “[a] person is guilty of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to be false or baseless, he or she [r]eports, by word or action, an alleged occurrence or condition of child abuse or maltreatment or abuse or neglect of a vulnerable person which did not in fact occur or exist to the statewide central register of child abuse and maltreatment.”2 Accordingly, the statute has the following elements: (1) defendant reported, by word or action, an alleged occurrence or condition of child abuse or maltreatment, which did not in fact occur or exist; (2) defendant made such report to the statewide central register of child abuse and maltreatment; and (3) defendant knew that the information reported, conveyed or circulated was false or baseless (see CJI2d[NY] Penal Law §240.50 [4]). Defendant contends that the accusatory instrument is facially insufficient because it lacks allegations that: (1) the report was untrue; (2) defendant made the report knowing it was false or with reason to know it was false; and (3) the circumstances reported to SCR did not amount to “child abuse, maltreatment, or neglect” (see affirmation of defendant’s counsel
