Opinion
November 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The conclusory allegations made in the affirmation of the defendant's attorney, in support of the branch of his motion seeking suppression of physical evidence, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning probable cause for his arrest. Although the hearing court should not have considered the substance of certain videotapes and audiotapes in purportedly reaching the issue of probable cause on the merits, summary denial of the branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress physical evidence was nonetheless proper (see, CPL 710.60; People v Pavesi, 144 A.D.2d 392; see also, People v Frazier, 185 A.D.2d 360; cf., People v Altruz, 198 A.D.2d 423 [decided herewith]).
Most of the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, after considering all of the remaining contentions, we find them to be without merit (see, e.g., People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705; People v Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941; People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; see also, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.