Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 1, 1966, which granted defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence, reversed, on the law and on the facts, and motion denied. It is well settled that property abandoned by a defendant may be lawfully seized and an arrest may be based on the former possession of the property ( People v. Pittman, 14 N.Y.2d 885; People v. Lopez, 22 A.D.2d 813; United States v. Zimple, 318 F.2d 676, cert. den. 375 U.S. 868). Defendant's denial of ownership of the suitcase can only be construed as an intention not to claim possession and was an effective abandonment of the suitcase ( People v. Chitty, 40 Misc.2d 580). The facts adduced at the hearing on the motion established a sufficient connection between defendant and the suitcase. Under all the circumstances herein, it was error to grant defendant's motion. Beldock, P.J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.