Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Those branches of the appellant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical and identification evidence were properly denied without a hearing. His mere allegation that he was not engaging in any conduct that would justify being stopped and searched, as well as his failure to deny having sold narcotics to the undercover officer rendered a hearing unnecessary ( cf., People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 428-429; Matter of Randy S., 222 A.D.2d 509). Nor was he entitled to a hearing to challenge the undercover officer's drive-by identification made within minutes of his arrest ( cf., People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v Grullon, 177 A.D.2d 398; People v. Stanton, 108 A.D.2d 688, 689). The deficiencies in the appellant's suppression motion being apparent on its face, the suppression court's failure to fully set forth the reasons for its determination requires no remedial action ( cf., People v. Berdecia, 223 A.D.2d 444).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; see, Matter of Andre L., 207 A.D.2d 348), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor are we persuaded that there was a break in the chain of custody of the evidence.
O'Brien, J.P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.