Opinion
June 13, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, George Roberts, J., John Bradley, J.
There is no merit to defendant's claim that a Mapp hearing was warranted by her allegation that the arresting officer did not, as he claimed, see her engage in criminal activity as he approached to arrest her. Such "allegations do not dispute the sufficiency of probable cause for [defendant's] arrest based on the earlier drug transaction with the undercover officer" ( People v. Marte, 207 A.D.2d 314, 316, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 937), as to which defendant's motion papers "merely disclaimed involvement in unlawful activity" ( Matter of Randy S., 222 A.D.2d 509, 510; cf., People v. Hightower, 85 N.Y.2d 988), and insofar as generating probable cause was concerned, defendant's conduct thereafter was "essentially irrelevant" ( People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 431). Defendant's allegations that "the arresting officer was not acting on information received from any reliable informant", and did not have "any reasonably trustworthy information which supported the conclusion that the defendant committed a criminal act", were too conclusory to raise a factual issue warranting a hearing, as was her allegation, made in support of her motion for a Wade hearing, that "the description of the perpetrators given by the [undercover officer] was vague and contained insufficient detail to provide for a valid seizure of [her]" ( People v. Berdecia, 223 A.D.2d 444; People v. Chavous, 204 A.D.2d 475, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 1002).
Defendant's claim that she was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's summation is unpreserved as a matter of law and, in any event, without merit. The prosecutor's comments regarding steps the police could have taken to conceal paperwork errors or to fabricate the buy money that was not recovered were properly responsive to defense summation comments that challenged the credibility of the police witnesses ( People v. Aybar, 162 A.D.2d 283, 285, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 937; People v Flores, 161 A.D.2d 483, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 788). Nor does the single instance in which the prosecutor exaggerated the extent to which defendant used drugs warrant reversal in the absence of an "`obdurate pattern of inflammatory remarks'" ( People v D'Allessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884), and in the presence of overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.