Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Steven W. Brockett, J.), rendered January 12, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of reckless endangerment in the second degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant was convicted after a nonjury trial of reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20). The sole issue raised on the appeal concerns the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument. The subject accusatory instrument, verified by Detective Miller, was denominated a misdemeanor complaint rather than an information (cf. People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 359 [2000]). Defendant does not
dispute that he validly waived prosecution by information. Accordingly, our review is limited to the issue of the facial sufficiency of the misdemeanor complaint.

In our opinion, the accusatory instrument satisfies the statutory requirements for a misdemeanor complaint since, inter alia, its factual allegations provide reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense charged in the accusatory part of the instrument, i.e., reckless endangerment in the second degree (see CPL 100.40 [4] [b]; Penal Law § 120.20). Defendant was named by the officer in the instrument, and the instrument was in substantial compliance with CPL 100.15 in that its factual part contained, as required by said provision, "a [*2]statement of the complainant alleging facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges" (see CPL 100.40 [4] [a]; People v Chaney, 163 AD2d 617, 618-619 [1990]). Furthermore, a misdemeanor complaint may be based by the complainant either upon personal knowledge or upon information and belief (CPL 100.15 [3]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 30, 2008