Opinion
February 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthews, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence was made on the eve of trial, some nine months after his arraignment and three months after the People filed and served their bill of particulars, the motion was untimely (CPL 710.40, [2]; 255.20 [1]). In any event, as the affirmation accompanying the motion fails to allege facts in support of the motion, and only sets forth conclusory allegations, the motion was properly denied without a hearing (see, People v. Roberto H., 67 A.D.2d 549).
The defendant also argues that the court improperly failed to grant his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. That juror had two sons, a daughter and a daughter-in-law who were police officers, but indicated in a forthright manner that he believed he would be fair and impartial and follow the court's instructions. While the defendant's challenge for cause does not fall within the relationships enumerated in CPL 270.20 (1) (c), that statute empowers the Trial Judge to identify other suspect relationships. Thus, a venireman may not serve if he "bears some other relationship to any such person of such nature that it is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict" (CPL 270.20 [c]; People v. Smith, 110 A.D.2d 669, revd on other grounds 68 N.Y.2d 737, cert denied ___ US ___, 107 S Ct 444).
Here the defendant challenged the prospective juror only because he had close relations who were police officers. However, the defendant was not charged with crimes involving conduct against police officers (see, People v. Smith, supra; People v Johnson, 89 A.D.2d 506). Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not improperly exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's challenge for cause.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.