The court's summary denial of defendant's request for aMapp/Dunaway hearing was proper. Defendant's moving papers did not raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing. His conclusory assertions did not set forth a basis for suppression of the drugs in question (see, People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415; People v. Reynolds, 71 N.Y.2d 552, 558). "Since the People were obviously justifying the search on an abandonment theory, it was incumbent upon defendant to set forth a specific alternate scenario which, if credited, would have warranted suppression." (People v. Omaro, 201 A.D.2d 324, 325). Rather than advancing any such scenario under which his privacy interest was violated, defendant's papers were "deliberately and artfully vague" as to whether the drugs had, at any time, been in his possession (People v. Coleman, 191 A.D.2d 390, 392, affd 82 N.Y.2d 415).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.