Defendant's Wade/Dunaway motion was properly denied, without a hearing, based on the information available to the court ( see, People v. Rumph, 248 A.D.2d 142, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 860; People v. Omaro, 201 A.D.2d 324, 325). Defendant did not sufficiently raise any factual issues requiring a hearing, since she failed to address the People's response that the confrontation between the complainant and defendant occurred when the complainant happened upon defendant and called the police, thus rendering the encounter entirely civilian-initiated ( see, People v. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218, 222-223). Defendant did not reply to the People's response, and her moving papers contained neither a clear denial of the facts alleged by the People, nor any clear theory under which a Wade or Dunaway hearing might be required notwithstanding those allegations ( compare, People v. Brown, 86 N.Y.2d 728).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Saxe, JJ.