Opinion
October 14, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Robert Haft, J., Jerome Marks, J., Edward McLaughlin, J.
The support offered for the defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence seized from him upon his arrest substantially complied with the requirements of CPL 710.60 (1) so as to warrant a hearing. Counsel adequately set forth the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant's arrest as well as the source of statements made by her upon information and belief (Matter of Tyrell B., 177 A.D.2d 375; see, People v. Miller, 162 A.D.2d 248, lv dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 895). It is noted that the People's response to defendant's motion did not specifically address the statements made in support of the motion concerning the legality of the police officer's initial approach (cf., People v. Miller, supra).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.