Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Harold Adler, J.), rendered March 4, 2010, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Harold Adler, J.), rendered March 4, 2010, affirmed.

We find unavailing defendant's present challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging her with three counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1],[2],[3]). The information - comprising the misdemeanor complaint and the arresting police officer's supporting deposition - alleged, inter alia, that defendant was observed standing in an unsteady manner next to a grey Chevrolet which had scratches and dents to the front right bumper; that defendant exhibited bloodshot and watery eyes and the strong odor of alcohol on her breath; that defendant told the arresting officer that "[she] was driving eastbound on East 242 Street and a vehicle was approaching quickly and in order to avoid being struck, I swerved out of the way and hit the two cars"; and that the results of defendant's breath test showed her blood alcohol level to be over .08%. These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant was guilty of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (see People v Dolan, 1 Misc 3d 32 [2003]). "[T]he absence of allegations in the information corroborating defendant's statements that she was driving' the vehicle did not affect the jurisdictional validity of the information" (People v Suber, 19 NY3d 247, 254 [2012]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.