PEOPLE v. SALADIN (1999)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J., at pretrial omnibus motion;  Renee White, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered November 12, 1996, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

 Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied without a hearing.   Defendant never made the requisite specific denial (see, People v. Hightower, 85 N.Y.2d 988, 990, 629 N.Y.S.2d 164, 652 N.E.2d 910) of the undercover sale alleged by the People (People v. Williams, 228 A.D.2d 268, 644 N.Y.S.2d 194, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 996, 649 N.Y.S.2d 403, 672 N.E.2d 629;  see also, People v. Rosario, 245 A.D.2d 151, 665 N.Y.S.2d 662, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 896, 669 N.Y.S.2d 11, 691 N.E.2d 1037), and thus did not set forth a factual issue requiring a suppression hearing (CPL 710.60[1] ).

 Contrary to defendant's argument, the testimony of the People's rebuttal witness, at least in part, “addressed facts that were first put in issue by the defendant” (People v. Payne, 235 A.D.2d 235, 652 N.Y.S.2d 273, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1039, 659 N.Y.S.2d 870, 681 N.E.2d 1317, quoting People v. Figueroa, 188 A.D.2d 269, 590 N.Y.S.2d 716, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 788, 594 N.Y.S.2d 735, 610 N.E.2d 408).   To the extent the witness's testimony may not have been technically in the nature of rebuttal, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting it (CPL 260.30[7];  People v. Payne, supra, at 236, 652 N.Y.S.2d 273).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.