Opinion
Decided April 2, 2009.
APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered April 1, 2008. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the third degree.
Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence.
The Appellate Division concluded that defendant was provided with sufficient information to rebut the People's position that the police had probable cause to search him; that the allegations in defendant's motion papers did not raise any factual issue warranting a hearing; and that the trial court's summary denial of defendant's suppression motion was proper.
People v France, 50 AD3d 266, affirmed.
Legal Aid Society, New York City ( Kristina Schwarz and Steven Banks of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Susan Axelrod and Eleanor Ostrow of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Under CPL 710.60 (1), a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a suppression motion only if there is an issue of fact that must be resolved before it can be determined whether suppression is required. Here, evaluating (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) the context of the motion, and (3) the defendant's access to information ( see People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 426; see also People v Lopez, 5 NY3d 753, 754), the motion was properly denied without a hearing. Despite having sufficient information from the felony complaint and the voluntary disclosure form concerning the factual predicate for his arrest, defendant failed to dispute that the victim told the police that he had been robbed by defendant, that the victim identified him to the police and that defendant admitted possessing a pawnshop receipt for the stolen goods ( cf. People v Bryant, 8 NY3d 530). These uncontested facts provide support for the Appellate Division's conclusion that there was probable cause for the arrest, and thus the Appellate Division correctly concluded that a hearing was unnecessary.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum: