Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly denied him a suppression hearing. The defendant sold heroin to an undercover officer during a so-called "buy and bust" operation. The defendant's affirmation in support of his motion did not "contain sworn allegations of fact" as is required under CPL 710.60 (1). The defendant's bare contention that he "[a]t no time * * * engage[d] in any criminal behavior" is precisely the type of legal conclusion the Court of Appeals has stated is insufficient to warrant a suppression hearing, especially in the context of a "buy and bust" operation (see, People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415).
The defendant's remaining contention was not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, does not warrant reversal. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.