Opinion
July 21, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J., Heller, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
While our review of the trial record in this case reveals that there may have been grounds for a hearing on the issue of whether a gun which was recovered when the defendant allegedly abandoned it should have been suppressed (see, e.g., People v Glover, 82 A.D.2d 43), the defendant's papers in support of that branch of his motion which was to suppress physical evidence were grossly inadequate in that they stated only conclusory legal grounds for the relief requested, which were not supported by sufficient allegations of fact (CPL 710.60, [3]; People v Reynolds, 71 A.D.2d 1008; People v Gomez, 67 N.Y.2d 843). Consequently, the summary denial of that branch of his motion was proper (see, e.g., People v Roberto H., 67 A.D.2d 549, 552; People v Washington, 106 A.D.2d 593). We again call the attention to the Trial Bench to the mandate of CPL 710.60 (6), that the courts set forth on the record findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the reasons for the determination of a suppression motion (see, People v Thomas, 58 A.D.2d 899), and that such findings are required "[r]egardless of whether a hearing was conducted". The omission of these findings here is not fatal, as the defendant's moving papers were so plainly inadequate. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.