The People of the State of New York, v. T.B., Defendant. (2026)

On February 20, 2026, T.B. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant") was arraigned on a top count of Penal Law ("P.L.") § 121.11(a), a class A misdemeanor, and related charges. The Defendant was released on her own recognizance.

On April 29, 2026, the People filed the instant motion to deem the misdemeanor complaint, together with the supporting deposition signed by ten-year-old J.M., an information.

For the reasons set forth below, the People's request is GRANTED.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 19, 2026, the Defendant was charged by misdemeanor complaint with P.L. § 121.11(a), criminal obstruction of breathing; two counts of P.L. § 120.00(1), assault in the third degree; two counts of P.L. § 260.10(1), endangering the welfare of a child; and two counts of P.L. § 240.26(1), harassment in the second degree. The charges stemmed from two separate incidents reported by the complainant, the Defendant's ten-year-old child, both of which were alleged to have occurred in January 2026.

The criminal complaint was sworn by deponent Detective Shamika Covington, who had been informed by J.M., the Defendant's minor child. On March 7, 2026, the People filed and served a supporting deposition signed by J.M. The supporting deposition stated that J.M. had read the complaint and that the facts contained therein are true upon J.M.'s personal knowledge. Additionally, the supporting deposition bore a notice stating that false statements made therein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor.

On April 10, 2026, the People filed and served a motion for a protective order pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.70(1), which stopped the speedy trial clock (C.P.L. § 245.70[8]). The prosecution motion requested that possession of recordings of forensic interviews with J.M. and J.M.'s sibling be restricted to defense counsel.

On April 15, 2026, the parties appeared before this Court. The Defendant was appointed new counsel, who requested time to review the People's motion for a protective order. Newly appointed counsel was directed to respond to the People's motion for a protective order by April 30, 2026.

Additionally, the People requested that the criminal complaint and supporting deposition be deemed an information. Defense counsel objected, arguing that the supporting deposition lacked documentation regarding the child's ability to understand what he had signed. The prosecution argued that pursuant to C.P.L. § 60.20(2), a child over the age of nine is presumed competent to testify; accordingly, additional documentation of the child's competence was not required to convert the accusatory instrument.

The Court directed the People to file an affirmation attesting that an appropriate inquiry had been conducted into the child's ability to swear under oath. The People declined, instead seeking the instant motion schedule.

By motion dated April 29, 2026, the People asked the Court to deem the accusatory instrument a misdemeanor information. On June 12, 2026, the Defendant opposed.¹ The People's reply followed on July 7, 2026.

On June 22, 2026, the People provided, for the Court's review, the video recording of J.M.'s forensic interview.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The issue before the court is whether a supporting deposition, signed by a ten-year-old child and verified through the procedure described in C.P.L. § 100.30(1)(d), converts a misdemeanor complaint to an information for the purposes of criminal prosecution in the absence of additional documentation or support for the child's competence.

Except where a defendant waives prosecution by information, a misdemeanor complaint must be converted to or replaced by an information prior to the commencement of trial or entering of a plea (C.P.L. § 170.65). A facially sufficient misdemeanor information must contain non-hearsay facts of an evidentiary character which provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the charged offenses (C.P.L. §§ 100.15 and 100.40). Accordingly, where a misdemeanor complaint relies on hearsay to establish any element of a charged offense or the Defendant's commission thereof, this hearsay must be cured to convert the complaint to an information.

Hearsay contained in misdemeanor complaints is most commonly cured by the subscription and filing of a supporting deposition, wherein the hearsay declarant verifies personal knowledge of the complaint's factual allegations (C.P.L. § 100.20). An information, misdemeanor complaint, or supporting deposition may be verified in multiple ways: the document may be sworn to before the court (C.P.L. § 100.30[1][a]); before certain police personnel (C.P.L. § 100.30[1][b]); before a designated public servant (C.P.L. § 100.30[1][c]); or before a notary public (C.P.L. § 100.30[1][e]). Most commonly, however, supporting depositions are verified by the method described in C.P.L. § 100.30(1)(d), which allows for verification when the signed document bears a "form notice that false statements made therein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law."

Additionally, C.P.L. § 100.30(2) states that a supporting deposition "may be verified in any manner prescribed [in C.P.L. § 100.30(1)], unless in a particular case the court expressly directs verification in a particular manner prescribed in [C.P.L. § 100.30(1)]."

DISCUSSION

I. The Parties' Arguments

The People cite C.P.L § 60.20(2) in support of their motion to deem the criminal complaint, together with J.M.'s supporting deposition, an information. Under C.P.L. § 60.20(2), a witness more than nine years of age is presumed competent to testify under oath, while a witness less than nine years old is presumed incompetent. Both presumptions are rebuttable:

Every witness more than nine years old may testify only under oath unless the court is satisfied that such witness cannot, as a result of mental disease or defect, understand the nature of an oath. A witness less than nine years old may not testify under oath unless the court is satisfied that he or she understands the nature of an oath. If under either of the above provisions, a witness is deemed to be ineligible to testify under oath, the witness may nevertheless be permitted to give unsworn evidence if the court is satisfied that the witness possesses sufficient intelligence and capacity to justify the reception thereof. A witness understands the nature of an oath if he or she appreciates the difference between truth and falsehood, the necessity for telling the truth, and the fact that a witness who testifies falsely may be punished. (C.P.L. § 60.20[2])

Additionally, the People emphasize, a determination of the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be based solely on the four corners of the document—here, the criminal complaint taken together with the supporting deposition signed by J.M. Because the criminal complaint contains non-hearsay factual allegations supporting the Defendant's commission of each element of each charged offense, it is facially sufficient, without need for additional information regarding the minor's competence (citing C.P.L. §§ 100.15 and 100.40; People v Casey 95 NY2d 354 [2000]). Moreover, the People stress that the accusatory instrument must be viewed in the light most favorable to the People (citing People v Gonzalez, 184 Misc 2d 262 [App Term, 1st Dept 2000]).

Defense counsel, in turn, argues that the supporting deposition, signed by ten-year-old J.M. and bearing C.P.L. § 100.30(1)(d) form language, is insufficient to cure the complaint's hearsay due to J.M.'s young age. The criminal complaint itself contains J.M.'s birthdate, and the supporting deposition bears form language stating that false statements "are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law." Defense counsel thus argues that the accusatory instrument contains a jurisdictional defect rather than a latent one, as J.M.'s birthdate, together with the jargony C.P.L. § 100.30(1)(d) form language, constitute a defect detectable within the four corners of the accusatory instrument (People v Slade, 37 NY3d 127 [2021]).

II. The Forensic Interview

On June 22, 2026, the People submitted, for the Court's review, the recording of J.M.'s forensic interview. The interview was conducted at the direction of the Bronx County District Attorney's office, by an employee of the Bronx Child Advocacy Center, on February 3, 2026. In response to the interviewer's questions, J.M. demonstrated that he understood the difference between the truth and a lie, as well as the significance of a promise. J.M. indicated that he knew the importance of describing only what he had personally observed, felt, or experienced, rather than guessing at an answer that he did not know; he also displayed the ability to correct and clarify details for the interviewer.

Having reviewed J.M.'s forensic interview, the Court is satisfied that J.M. possesses the capacity to verify the supporting deposition. The Court nonetheless considers the parties' arguments below.

III. The Court's Discretion to Request Supplementary Materials

Two related questions arise from the issue presented. First, what significance, if any, does C.P.L. § 60.20(2)'s presumption regarding the testimonial competency of a child over nine years of age have in determining whether a supporting deposition executed by a minor has been properly verified? Second, notwithstanding the verification methods authorized by C.P.L. § 100.30(1), does the Court retain discretion under C.P.L. § 100.30(2) to require additional information when the capacity of a minor signatory to understand and verify a supporting deposition is placed at issue?

In People v Delossantos, 112 NYS3d 849 (App Term, 1st Dept 2019), the Appellate Term, First Department considered the facial sufficiency of an accusatory instrument verified by a child under the age of nine without a competency inquiry conducted by the court. The court held that C.P.L. § 60.20(2), which governs a child's competency to testify under oath in a criminal proceeding, does not require the court to conduct a competency inquiry before a child may verify an accusatory instrument. Rather, inquiry into the child's capacity, conducted by an assistant district attorney and provided for judicial review, properly verified the accusatory instrument.²

In People v Parker, 1685 NYS3d 229 (App Term, 2d Dept 2022), the Appellate Term, Second Department considered the sufficiency of a supporting deposition signed by a fourteen-year-old complainant, which bore the form notice articulated in C.P.L. § 100.30(1)(d). The Parker court found that C.P.L. § 60.20(2) "does not apply to the verification of a supporting deposition by a 14-year-old" (citing Delossantos and People v Hetrick, 80 NY2d 344 [1992] [finding a competency inquiry unnecessary where the child's testimony formed the basis for a search warrant application]).

Neither Delossantos nor Parker holds that compliance with the form requirements of C.P.L. § 100.30(1)(d) necessarily ends the court's inquiry in every case involving a minor signatory. Nor do those decisions divest the court of its independent authority to determine whether an accusatory instrument has been properly verified when the minor signatory's capacity is placed at issue. Rather, those cases establish that a competency inquiry personally conducted by the court is not invariably required merely because the person verifying an accusatory instrument is a minor.

Whether a particular method of verification is statutorily permissible and whether the court may require additional information in a particular case are separate questions. C.P.L. § 100.30(2) expressly provides that a supporting deposition may ordinarily be verified by any method prescribed by C.P.L. § 100.30(1), "unless in a particular case the court expressly directs verification in a particular manner" authorized by that subdivision. C.P.L. § 100.30(1) provides the prosecution with a flexible menu of verification options, while C.P.L. § 100.30(2) preserves judicial authority to require a particular method of verification when the circumstances of an individual case warrant further inquiry.

Accordingly, when the capacity of a minor signatory to understand and verify a supporting deposition is legitimately at issue, or when the circumstances otherwise raise a genuine question about the adequacy of the verification, the court retains discretion to request additional information reasonably necessary to resolve that question. Such information may include a recorded forensic interview, transcribed inquiry, or other appropriate means by which the Court may assess whether the minor possessed sufficient capacity to verify the allegations attributed to the minor.

Here, defense counsel challenged whether the accusatory instrument was properly verified, given the combination of the child's young age and the complexity of the language contained in the verification method used. The People maintained that because J.M. was over nine years old and therefore presumed competent to testify under C.P.L. § 60.20(2), no additional documentation was necessary. The Court requested additional information concerning J.M.'s capacity, and the People ultimately provided the recording of J.M.'s forensic interview for the Court's review.

Upon reviewing the interview, the Court observed that J.M. demonstrated an understanding of the distinction between truth and falsehood and the significance of a promise; understood the importance of describing what he personally observed, felt, or experienced rather than guessing; and demonstrated the capacity to correct and clarify details for the interviewer. The Court is therefore independently satisfied that J.M. possessed sufficient capacity to verify the supporting deposition. Accordingly, the supporting deposition cures the hearsay contained in the misdemeanor complaint, and the accusatory instrument is deemed an information.

CONCLUSION

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the prosecution's motion to deem the criminal complaint an information is GRANTED.

This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the Court.

Dated: August 12, 2026

Bronx, New York

Hon. Deidra R. Moore, J.C.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The original due date for the Defendant's reply was May 14, 2026. Additionally, defense counsel did not respond to the People's motion for a protective order until June 15, 2026.

2.   Although verification by an assistant district attorney is not specifically enumerated in C.P.L. § 100.30(1), the Delossantos court deems this an acceptable method of verification, following the reasoning of People v Soler, 144 Misc 2d 524 (Crim Ct, New York County 1989).

Deidra R. Moore, J.