Defendant Robert P. Caloro ("Caloro") is charged with one count of Endangering the Welfare of a Child pursuant to Penal Law § 260.10 (1), a class A misdemeanor, and one count of Harassment in the Second Degree pursuant to Penal Law § 240.26 (1), a violation. Caloro moves for omnibus relief. Having considered Caloro's papers in support thereof, dated October 22, 2025, and the People's opposition thereto, with exhibits, dated November 6, 2025, and for the reasons that follow, the Court denies that branch of Caloro's motion seeking dismissal of the child endangerment charge, grants those branches of Caloro's motion seeking, in the alternative, [*2]certain pre-trial hearings, and denies all other requested relief.

The charges against Caloro stem from an alleged incident of domestic violence occurring between Caloro and the complainant back in June of 2025. It is alleged their son was present during the incident. Because the complainant filed a Family Offense Petition against Caloro shortly after the arrest, the Supreme Court (Rivera, J.) signed an Order transferring the matter to the Integrated Domestic Violence Part. Caloro has since filed for divorce. Insofar as the criminal matter is concerned, Caloro is presently not incarcerated and subject to a temporary "no illegal contact" order of protection, issued by this Court, expiring in August of 2026. Caloro filed the instant omnibus motion seeking various forms of pre-trial relief, challenging the facial sufficiency of the misdemeanor information charging them with Endangering the Welfare of a Child.

Caloro argues that the misdemeanor information charging them with Endangering the Welfare of a Child is facially insufficient because it lacks non-hearsay factual allegations.

A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution (see People v Farrell, 44 NY3d 1, 5 [2025]). Generally, the test for whether an accusatory is jurisdictionally flawed is whether the instrument fails to supply the accused with sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy (see id.). As relevant to this motion, a misdemeanor information is sufficient on its face when, among other things, it contains non-hearsay allegations in either the factual part of the information or the attached supporting deposition, which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission of the enumerated offense (see CPL 100.40 [1] [c]). This requirement is jurisdictional, and a misdemeanor information lacking in this regard must be dismissed (see Farrell, 44 NY3d at 5).

The misdemeanor information, and the supporting deposition attached thereto, provides Caloro with sufficient notice of the charged crime. Caloro is charged with violating Penal Law § 260.10 (1), which makes it a crime for a person to knowingly act in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old. The victim's statement to the police, made with personal knowledge of the alleged incident and signed under penalty of perjury, describes their child witnessing the incident and even attempting to protect the victim against Caloro. The Court of Appeals has held that a child witnessing acts of domestic violence may form the basis of a prosecution under the statute (see generally People v Johnson, 95 NY2d 368, 373 [2000]).

Caloro seeks to challenge the facial sufficiency of the information by inviting the Court to speculate as to certain conduct on the part of the alleged victim described in the victim's supporting deposition. The Court declines. The job of the Court is to ascertain whether the accusatory instrument is facially sufficient, not to speculate beyond the four corners of the document and the supporting declaration appended thereto (see People v Slade, 37 NY3d 127, 136-37 [2021]). It is enough to say that the supporting deposition here was made by a person with first-hand personal knowledge of the events contained therein (see id. at 140).

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies that branch of Caloro's omnibus motion seeking dismissal of the child endangerment charge for facial insufficiency of the accusatory instrument.

The Court will hold hearings pursuant to People v Huntley (15 NY2d 72 [1965]) and Dunaway v New York (442 US 200 [1979]) before trial at a date and time to be determined.

The People acknowledge their continuing duty to disclose evidence favorable to Caloro pursuant to Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]), and are directed to continually do so (see generally People v Giuca, 33 NY3d 462, 473 [2019], quoting People v Simmons, 36 NY2d 126, 131-32 [1975] ["The prosecutor's duty to disclose 'arises out of considerations of elemental fairness to the defendant and as a matter of professional responsibility. Negligent, as well as deliberate, nondisclosure may deny due process. Good faith, therefore, may not excuse even a negligent failure to disclose unrequested exculpatory evidence where that evidence is highly material to the defense'"]); see also People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 73 [1990]).

The People are ordered to continue complying with the discovery requirements of article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law (see CPL § 245.60).

The Court will hold hearings pursuant to People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371 [1974]) and People v Ventimiglia (52 NY2d 350 [1981]) before trial at a date and time to be determined.

Any requests for further motions will be decided by the Court should such motions arise.

All other motions and requests contained in the omnibus motion and opposition thereto not specifically addressed herein are denied with leave to renew upon citation to specific legal authority supporting the request.

This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.

Parties' motion and opposition papers.