factual issue requiring hearing in New York

2014Accordingly, given defendant’s complete lack of relevant information, that portion of her motion papers alleging a “lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the unreliability of the information provided to the police and/or the insufficiency of the description,” while conclusory, was sufficient to state a basis for suppression and raise a factual issue requiring a hearing (see People v Bryant, 8 NY3d 530 [2007]; People v Vasquez, 200 AD2d 344 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 873 [1994]).

2014Accordingly, given defendant’s complete lack of relevant information, that portion of her motion papers alleging a “lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the unreliability of the information provided to the police and/or the insufficiency of the description,” while conclusory, was sufficient to state a basis for suppression and raise a factual issue requiring a hearing (see People v Bryant, 8 NY3d 530 [2007]; People v Vasquez, 200 AD2d 344 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 873 [1994]).

2007Lastly, in the recent case of People v Burton ( 6 NY3d 584 [2006] [a case relied upon by respondent in the matter at bar, with respect to her argument that the school officials had no reasonable suspicion to search the respondent or her property]), it was held that the defendant would have standing only upon submission of an affidavit averring that the drugs involved were recovered from his person.

2007Lastly, in the recent case of People v Burton ( 6 NY3d 584 [2006] [a case relied upon by respondent in the matter at bar, with [*3]respect to her argument that the school officials had no reasonable suspicion to search the respondent or her property]), it was held that the defendant would have standing only upon submission of an affidavit averring that the drugs involved were recovered from his person.

2005The motion court’s summary denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful detention was proper because defendant’s papers were insufficient to raise a factual issue requiring a hearing (see People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]).

2004In view of this information, defendant’s failure to controvert that he was apprehended pursuant to the outstanding warrant resulted in a failure to allege a legal ground for suppression, or to raise a factual issue requiring a hearing (see CPL 710.60 [3]; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]; People v Howell, 2 AD3d 258 [2003]).

2008This affidavit raised a factual issue requiring a hearing, to wit, on the issue of whether the papers and filing fee were timely delivered to the County Clerk so as to have met the requirements of CPLR 304 (see Peace v Yumin Zhang, 15 AD3d 956 [2005]).

2007The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, holding that, given the information available to defendant, his conclusory assertions were insufficient to create a factual issue requiring a hearing ( 30 AD3d 1131 [2006]).

2006The court properly denied the Mapp/Dunaway branch of defendant’s omnibus motion summarily, since his conclusory assertions were insufficient, given the information available to him, to create a factual issue requiring a hearing (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721 [2001]).

2004In view of this information, defendant’s failure to controvert that he was apprehended pursuant to the outstanding warrant resulted in a failure to allege a legal ground for suppression, or to raise a factual issue requiring a hearing (see CPL 710.60 [3]; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]; People v Howell, 2 AD3d 258 [2003]).

2003Instead, his allegations were couched in vague and hypothetical language that did not raise a factual issue requiring a hearing” (People v Velez, 281 AD2d 311, 311 , lv denied 96 NY2d 908 ).

1998Auth., 229 AD2d 310 ; Doino v Meltzer, 208 AD2d 798 ).

1998Auth., 229 AD2d 310 ; Doino v Meltzer, 208 AD2d 798 ).

1990Therefore, while this showing was ineffective to exclude that 22-day period as a matter of law, it was sufficient to create a factual issue requiring a hearing (see, People v Santos, supra, at 861; People v Miner, supra).

1990Although a challenge to the veracity of the affiant or to the validity of the information contained in the application presents a factual issue requiring a hearing (People v Glen, supra, at 262 ; People v Alfinito, 16 NY2d 181, 184-186 ; see generally, Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154 ), a challenge to the facial sufficiency of a written warrant application presents an issue of law which does not require a hearing and which the court properly decides by reviewing the affidavits alone in order to determine whether they establish probable cause (People v Glen, supra, at 256, 262 ; People v Solimine

1990Although a challenge to the veracity of the affiant or to the validity of the information contained in the application presents a factual issue requiring a hearing (People v Glen, supra, at 262 ; People v Alfinito, 16 NY2d 181, 184-186 ; see generally, Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154 ), a challenge to the facial sufficiency of a written warrant application presents an issue of law which does not require a hearing and which the court properly decides by reviewing the affidavits alone in order to determine whether they establish probable cause (People v Glen, supra, at 256, 262 ; People v Solimine

1987The defendant’s allegation that the taxicab was stopped despite the fact that no crime was being committed overlooked the totally legitimate possibility that the vehicle could have been stopped for a traffic violation based upon a very minimal factual basis supporting reasonable suspicion (People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 414-415 ).