Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Lewisboro, Westchester County (Marc A. Seedorf, J.), rendered April 14, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of failing to comply with an approved site plan, operating without a certificate of occupancy, and failing to submit an as-built site plan in accordance with the approved site plan.

Judgment of conviction reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, and fine, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was convicted of failing to comply with an approved site plan (Lewisboro Town Code § 220-44), operating without a certificate of occupancy (Lewisboro Town Code §§ 220-76, 91-22), and failing to submit an as-built site plan in accordance with the approved site plan (Lewisboro Town Code § 220-44). However, because the accusatory instrument was factually insufficient on its face, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and the accusatory instrument dismissed.

A criminal court information is sufficient on its face when
"(a)It substantially conforms to the requirements prescribed in section 100.15; and
(b) The allegations of the factual part of the information, together with those of any supporting depositions which may accompany it, provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged in the accusatory part of the information; and [*2]
(c)Non-hearsay allegations of the factual part of the information and/or of any supporting depositions establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" (CPL 100.40 [1]).

CPL 100.15 (3) requires that the factual portion of the information "contain a statement of the complainant alleging facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges." The People must allege sufficient facts "to make out their prima facie case for the offense charged in the text of the information" (People v Jones, 9 NY3d 259, 261 [2007]), the failure of which is a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect (People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 138-139 [1987]; e.g. People v Kass, 20 Misc 3d 131[A] 2008 NY Slip Op 51431[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]; People v Sylla, 7 Misc 3d 8, 10 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). The prima facie case requirement affords a defendant the "assurance that the information contains allegations establishing a legally sufficient case" (Alejandro, 70 NY2d at 139), and while the factual allegations in support thereof "should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), they must suffice to "give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and . . . [be] adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense" (id.; see also People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 575 [2004]). The factual portion of the instrument herein set forth little more than the conclusory assertion that defendant had violated the regulations cited in the accusatory portion and alleged no facts as to the gravamen of the People's case, that defendant's building, as constructed, so deviated from the approved site plan as to render invalid the as-built plan and the initial certificate of occupancy.

Rudolph, P.J., Scheinkman and LaCava, JJ., concur.