Opinion
April 27, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.).
The court's summary denial of defendant's request for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing was proper. Defendant's initial motion papers were clearly insufficient to warrant such a hearing ( see, People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415), and the court's refusal to consider defendant's supplementary affirmation alleging facts in defendant's actual knowledge from the inception of the case was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant "fail[ed] to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon the original application." ( Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568.) Furthermore, the fact that the court ordered a Huntley hearing involving the same witnesses did not obligate it to order a Mapp/Dunaway hearing as a matter of discretion ( People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 429-430, supra).
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Sullivan, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.