Opinion
No. 128 SSM 10.
Decided June 12, 2007.
APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered November 14, 2006. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at motions; Michael J. Obus, J., at renewal motion, jury trial and sentence), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (six counts).
Defendant was charged with criminal possession of stolen property based upon the police stop of the automobile in which she was a passenger, after she and a companion left a store following their suspicious conduct in attempting to make a purchase with credit cards without producing identification.
People v Long, 36 AD3d 132, affirmed.
Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City ( Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Tracy L. Conn and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for a Mappl Dunaway hearing in light of defendant's failure to raise a factual dispute as to reasonable suspicion for her detention and subsequent arrest. "[T]he sufficiency of defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant's access to information" ( People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 426; see also People v Lopez, 5 NY3d 753, 754). Under the circumstances of this case, defendant had ample access to relevant information regarding the factual predicate for her arrest, including access to the People's "write-up" of her conduct which the court read to her and her counsel at arraignment. Defendant failed to specifically challenge the identified informant's basis of knowledge in her suppression motion ( cf. People v Bryant, 8 NY3d 530, 534).
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur.
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.