Monroe County Attorney, Respondent. v. << (1997)

Family Court adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see, Penal Law § 220.03).   Respondent contends that the court erred in summarily denying his motion to suppress cocaine seized from him by the police.   We disagree.   Respondent was not entitled to a suppression hearing because his motion papers did not contain sworn allegations of fact supporting the conclusion that the police acted unlawfully (see, CPL 710.60 [1];  People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017;  People v. Smythe, 210 A.D.2d 887, 620 N.Y.S.2d 647, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 943, 627 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 651 N.E.2d 930).   Moreover, respondent's failure to deny the statements of the arresting officer in his supporting deposition may be deemed a concession, thereby obviating the need for a hearing (see, People v. Mendoza, supra, at 428, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017).   Based on the officer's uncontroverted statements, the court properly determined that the cocaine was not seized from respondent in violation of his constitutional rights.

Amended order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: