v.

MICHAEL C. GLENN, Appellant.

Submitted By: Tammy Feman (counsel for the appellant); Daniel T. Butler (counsel for the respondent)

Judgment Reversed in part / Affirmed in part: Andrew J. DiPaola, P.J.; Angelo J. Ingrassia & Louis C. Palella, JJ.

DECISION OF THE COURT

<SM-1>

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the District Court, Nassau County (L. Ruskin, J.), rendered on July20, 1998, convicting him of resisting arrest, reckless endangerment in the second degree, reckless driving, and three charges of passing a red light and imposing sentences.

Judgments convicting defendant of resisting arrest and reckless endangerment in the second degree unanimously reversed on the law and accusatory instruments dismissed.

Judgments convicting defendant of reckless driving and three charges of passing a red light unanimously affirmed.

<SM-2> The accusatory instrument charging the crime of reckless endangerment in the second degree alleges that defendant drove his vehicle in such manner as to cause a police officer to have to jump back. However, it fails to provide reasonable cause to believe that the officer was placed in danger of "serious physical injury" (Penal Law §§ 10.00[10]; 120.20). It is therefore jurisdictionally defective even as a misdemeanor complaint (CPL 100.40[4]).

The instrument charging defendant with resisting arrest is similarly defective, since it totally fails to describe the basis of the arrest and thus cannot provide reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful (cf., People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133; People v. Dumas, 68 NY2d 729).

The simplified traffic information charging defendant with reckless driving is facially sufficient (CPL 100.25[1]; 100.40[2]). Specifically, since the incident involved a police chase of defendant's vehicle, it was sufficient to set forth the location as westbound on Sunrise Highway in the City, town or Village of Massapequa.

With respect to defendant's contentions regarding the trial, the errors set forth were harmless and do not <SM-3> require reversal.

No issues are raised in defendant's brief concerning his convictions for passing a red light.

__