The motion court properly denied defendant's suppression motion without a hearing since the allegations contained in the motion papers, when considered in light of the criminal court complaint and the voluntary disclosure form, failed to raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing ( see CPL 710.60,[3]). Defendant's general and conclusory assertions of innocent conduct at the time of his arrest did not address the specific information that was provided by the People concerning the basis for that arrest, and did not assert any other basis for suppression ( see People v. Jones, 95 NY2d 721). Furthermore, defendant's papers were also deficient in that although defendant necessarily had direct knowledge of the relevant facts, he did not sufficiently allege that he was aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure ( see People v. Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 432-433; People v. Gomez, 67 NY2d 843; see also People v. Whitfield, 81 NY2d 904, 906).
The court properly sentenced defendant as a persistent felony offender, and properly denied his motion to set aside the sentence. The procedure under which defendant was adjudicated a persistent felony offender is constitutional ( People v. Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, cert denied ___ US ___ [Oct 31, 2005], 2005 WL 2103061 [2005], 2005 US LEXIS 7978 [2005]; People v. Rosen, 96 NY2d 329, cert denied 534 US 899).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.