Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the court erred in summarily denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress a confirmatory identification by an undercover officer as the fruit of an illegal arrest. However, the factual allegations made in support of his omnibus motion were insufficient to either warrant suppression of the identification or to require a hearing on the matter (see, People v Mendoza,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.