People v Elvis Lopez

People v Lopez 2005 NY Slip Op 05454 [5 NY3d 753] June 30, 2005 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, October 05, 2005

[*1] The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Elvis Lopez, Appellant.

Decided June 30, 2005

People v Lopez, 13 AD3d 152, affirmed.

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 [*2]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.