The motion court properly denied, without a hearing, defendant's motion to suppress fruits of his allegedly unlawful arrest. In this undercover sale case, although defendant possessed sufficient factual information to prepare an adequate suppression motion, his claim of innocuous behavior at the time of his arrest, and his vague and generalized assertion that he "was never previously observed engaging in any illegal or suspicious activity," were insufficient to either deny participation in the underlying drug transaction or to allege some other basis for suppression ( see People v. Jones, 95 N.Y.2d 721; compare People v. Hightower, 85 N.Y.2d 988). We note that after the People submitted an answering affirmation that set forth, in detail, the predicate for defendant's arrest, defendant did not reply, and the court expressly decided that there was no factual issue warranting a Mapp/Dunaway hearing.
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.