Opinion
March 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the court did not err in summarily denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence of narcotics allegedly found in his possession. The affirmation submitted by the defendant's attorney in support of the motion merely made a conclusory claim that the defendant did not consent to the search of his person, premises, or property and failed to set forth the necessary allegations of fact (see, CPL 710.60; People v. Reynolds, 71 N.Y.2d 552; People v Morrow, 183 A.D.2d 853; People v. Montalvo, 182 A.D.2d 779; People v. Williams, 170 A.D.2d 551). Following jury selection, the defendant renewed his motion to suppress physical evidence on the ground that certain Rosario material contained what he alleged were new facts about the recovery of the narcotics. We find that the court did not err in denying the motion, as it was based on grounds which the defendant, with due diligence, could have presented in his initial motion within the 45-day time period in CPL 255.20 (1) (see, CPL 255.20; People v. Franklin, 127 A.D.2d 685; cf., People v. Levine, 162 A.D.2d 718).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.