Defendant's omnibus motion is determined as follows:

In this case, the defendant is charged by way of two (2) informations, with an alleged violation of Penal Law §165.05 (3), as well as an alleged violation of Penal Law §155.25.

Defendant's motion for an order, pursuant to CPL 170.30(1)(a), dismissing the within information charging an alleged violation of Penal Law §155.25 as facially insufficient and defective is denied. The herein order of the Honorable Joseph C. Calabrese dated February 19, 2013, converting the original felony complaint to an information, pursuant to CPL 180.50(3)(a)(iii), constitutes law of the case with regard to the factual support for the charge (see CPL 180.50[3][b]; People v Yolles, 92 NY2d 960 [1998]; People v Henderson, 7 Misc 3d 126[A] [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 2005]["pursuant to CPL §180.50, a reduction from a felony complaint to a non-felony offense may only occur if the court conducts an inquiry as to whether the facts and evidence provide a basis for charging the non-felony offense and, after such inquiry, the court is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the non-felony offense"]). As such, Judge Calabrese's determination may not be reargued before another judge in a court of coordinate jurisdiction. Defendant's remedy, if any, would be to set aside the reduction order, which would require reinstatement of the original felony complaint (see generally People v Minor, 144 Misc 2d 846 [App Term, 2nd [*2]and 11th Jud Dists 1989]).

Defendant's motion for an order, pursuant to CPL 170.30(1)(a), dismissing the within information charging an alleged violation of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, Penal Law §165.05 (3) is also denied.

Here, only the information charging an alleged violation of Penal Law §165.05 (3) is at issue. The within information substantially complies with the requirements set forth in CPL 100.15 and 100.40 and is thus sufficient on its face. Specifically, the allegations of the factual part of the information, together with those contained in its accompanying supporting deposition, provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged (CPL 100.40[1][b]) and provide non-hearsay allegations, establishing, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof (see CPL 100.40[1][c]).

Defendant's motion for disclosure of the names, addresses and telephone numbers, as well as all statements for potential witnesses, is denied as premature.

Although not necessary, the defendant's request for disclosure of evidence under Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963) is granted to the extent that the People are reminded of their continuing obligation.

A Sandoval/Molineux hearing will be held immediately prior to trial, when the People will comply with CPL 240.43.

Defendant's attempt to reserve the right to make additional motions is denied (see CPL 255.20 [3]).

Defendant's omnibus motion is, in all other respects, denied.

So Ordered:

Hon. Helen Voutsinas

District Court Judge

Dated: July 29, 2013

cc:Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney for Nassau County [*3]

Kent V. Moston, Esq.