Case ID: ny3d_5/html/0753-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[834 NE2d 1255, 801 NYS2d 245]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elvis Lopez, Appellant.
    Decided June 30, 2005
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Office of Appellate Defender, New York City (Daniel A. Warshawsky and Richard M. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Frank Glaser and Sylvia Wertheimer of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The suppression court did not commit reversible error in denying the Mapp/Dunaway portion of defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing. Given “(1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant’s access to information,” defendant’s allegations in support of his motion were too conclusory to warrant a hearing (People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 426 [1993]; see also People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721, 728-729 [2001]). Defendant gave a written postarrest statement, disclosed to him with the People’s voluntary disclosure form, that describes events very close in time and place to one of the charged crimes. The statement says that “one of the officers was with” one of the robbery victims, “so I knew they were looking for us, so I ran,” and also that, before his arrest, defendant threw a gun away. The statement on its face shows probable cause for defendant’s arrest, and defendant failed to controvert it in his motion papers.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.