PER CURIAM:
We find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging unlicensed general vending ( see, Administrative Code of City of NY, § 20-453). The information — comprising the misdemeanor complaint and a police officer's supporting deposition — alleges, inter alia, that at a specified time and location (3:30 P.M. on April 20, 2002, at the southwest corner of Canal Street and Broadway in Manhattan) defendant, lacking the requisite license, "display[ed]" and "offer[ed] for sale" more than 10 "assorted" compact discs while standing immediately behind a shopping cart in which the merchandise was "offered for sale"; that defendant was the only person who was "uninterruptedly in immediate proximity to the merchandise"; and that defendant showed the merchandise to "numerous people." These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" ( People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant violated the general vending ordinance. Contrary to defendant's contention, the accusatory instrument is not jurisdictionally infirm due to the absence of specific allegations concerning the manner in which defendant "showed" the compact discs or the precise number of persons to whom the compact discs were shown, matters which are best left for trial. At the pleading stage, the sworn allegations that defendant, while standing immediately behind a shopping cart containing more than 10 compact discs, displayed and offered to sell such merchandise by showing it to numerous people are "sufficiently evidentiary in character" ( People v. Allen, 92 NY2d 378, 385) to support the offer for sale element of the charged offense ( see, People v. Guan, 2003 WL 211869478, decided May 7, 2003 [App Term, 1st Dept]).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.