The habeas court properly determined that there was no abuse of discretion by the bail court in denying petitioner bail (see, People ex rel. Hunt v. Warden, 161 A.D.2d 475, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 703). The record reflects the bail court's careful consideration of every factor enumerated in CPL 510.30, and supports its determination that, based on petitioner's criminal record, the strength of the People's case against him, his potential sentence upon conviction as a discretionary persistent felony offender or, at the least, a second felony offender, his substantial financial resources and apparent ties to an organized crime family (an allegation not disputed at the bail hearing), and his threats to witnesses, he posed a risk of flight and, therefore should be denied bail. These considerations were proper (People ex rel. Gamble v. Romano, 172 A.D.2d 575, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 854), and there is no basis on which to conclude that remand was an abuse of discretion even in view of petitioner's prior court appearances (see, People ex rel. Siegel v. Sielaff, 182 A.D.2d 389).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.