The issue before us is whether the lower courts erred in permitting amendment of a clearly erroneous fact contained in the information charging Mr. Hardy with harassment and contempt in the second degree. In People v Easton (307 NY 336 [1954]), we upheld a similar amendment. However, Easton was decided when the Code of Criminal Procedure governed criminal prosecutions. Following several years of study and numerous reports by the Bartlett Commission,[FN1] the legislature replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure with the modern Criminal Procedural [*2]Law (CPL). Relying on Easton, the Appellate Term held that the factual amendment of the clearly erroneous date was permissible. We must now decide whether Easton remains good law following the passage of the Criminal Procedure Law. We conclude the CPL displaced Easton and precluded prosecutors from curing factual errors or deficiencies in informations and misdemeanor complaints via amendment. The CPL requires a superseding accusatory instrument supported by a sworn statement containing the correct factual allegations. Therefore, we reverse.
***
lennyesq 