People v. Watson

¶1The motion court erred in summarily denying defendant’s suppression motion on the ground that he did not admit he was in possession of the physical evidence the police claimed to have found on his person (see People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584, 588 [2006] ). As the court indicated, defendant’s moving papers were otherwise sufficient to warrant a hearing (see id. at 590). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.