People v. Morrow (183 A.D.2d 853, 1992)

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered December 14, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends, inter alia, that the police illegally detained and arrested him. The record reveals that in his omnibus motion the defendant sought a hearing in connection with his application to suppress physical evidence. The trial court, however, summarily denied the foregoing branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion upon the ground that the defendant had failed to make sufficient factual allegations to require a hearing.

On appeal, the defendant does not challenge the trial court’s summary denial of his motion, but instead, relies upon testimony adduced at trial in arguing that the physical evidence should be suppressed.

Since no suppression hearing was ever conducted, there is no hearing record before us upon which to review the defendant’s claims (cf., People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 418). Moreover, the trial court’s summary denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress was proper inasmuch as the defendant’s motion papers failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to warrant a hearing (CPL 710.60 [3]; People v Reynolds, 71 NY2d 552, 558; People v Montalvo, 182 AD2d 779; People v Pavesi, 144 AD2d 392).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.