| People v Smith |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00182 [69 AD3d 657] |
| January 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kimark Smith, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann,J.), rendered January 17, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substancein the fifth degree and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), and imposing sentence.The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant'somnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without ahearing, that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence (see People v Montero, 44 AD3d796 [2007]). The defendant's supporting papers were conclusory and failed to set forthfactual allegations sufficient to warrant such a hearing (see CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; People v Wright, 54 AD3d 695,696 [2008]; People v Montero, 44 AD3d at 797).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions of endangering the welfare of a child is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that theevidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt ofendangering the welfare of a child (see Penal Law § 260.10 [1]; People vHitchcock, 98 NY2d 586, 592 [2002]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant toCPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on those counts was not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Covello, J.P., Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.