Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cynthia Long, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2007-06-12
Citations: 8 N.Y.3d 1014
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cynthia Long, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 1014–1015

Head Matter:
[870 NE2d 680, 839 NYS2d 441]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cynthia Long, Appellant.
Decided June 12, 2007
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
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:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorándum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for a Mapp/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 [1993]; see also People v Lopez, 5 NY3d 753, 754 [2005]). 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.