Opinion
Argued May 9, 1984
Decided June 7, 1984
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Ivan Warner, J.
Stephanie T. Knowles and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.
Mario Merola, District Attorney ( Stuart L. Sanders and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law in denying the defendant's motion to reopen the suppression hearing. A court is not bound to grant a motion to reopen in order to entertain a new issue based on a decision announced after the motion to suppress has been denied ( People v Grosfeld, 58 N.Y.2d 887). Here, as in Grosfeld, the defendant failed to meet the threshold requirement for such relief because he did not establish a factual predicate at the hearing to support his contention that the warrantless arrest violated his rights under Payton v New York ( 445 U.S. 573), and this defect was not cured by the papers he submitted on the motion to reopen. Under these circumstances the retroactivity of Payton is irrelevant ( People v Grosfeld, supra), as are the trial court's beliefs or observations concerning retroactivity ( People v Kaminski, 58 N.Y.2d 886).
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.