The defendant who is charged with one count of Assault in the Third Degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 120.00(1) and one count of Harassment in the Second Degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 240.26(1), moves to reargue this Court's decision dated August 28, 2017 which denied that branch of its motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the basis of facial insufficiency. While the People did oppose the underlying motion, they have not submitted written opposition to this motion to reargue.

"A motion to reargue is addressed to the discretion of the court and should be granted only if a relevant fact or principle of law has been overlooked or misapplied." People v. Raglin, 175 Misc 2d 1009 (Crim Ct, Queens County 1998).

Defendant contends that this Court either overlooked or misapplied the law and denied its motion to dismiss. Defendant's main argument is that the misdemeanor complaint filed in this action must be dismissed because it relies on hearsay. There is no dispute that the misdemeanor complaint relies on hearsay, a misdemeanor complaint is a misdemeanor information but with hearsay allegations permitted (see, People v Fernandez, 20 NY3d 44 [2012]). Thus, a much lower standard is applicable when determining the legal sufficiency of complaints, which, unlike informations do not serve as the sole instrument of prosecution and adjudication (People v Dumas, 79 NY2d 729, 740 [1986]).

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to reargue is denied in its entirety.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.