Opinion
May 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the search warrant was issued upon a deficient factual predicate is lacking in merit. As we have observed, a search warrant must be supported by evidence establishing probable cause to believe "that an offense has been or is being committed, or that evidence of criminality may be found in a certain place" (People v. Londono, 148 A.D.2d 753; see also, People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v. Schiavo, 162 A.D.2d 639). Moreover, a search warrant may be validly based upon hearsay information found to be reliable (see, People v. Lopez, 162 A.D.2d 621; People v. Londono, supra; see also, People v Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225). Significantly, "an affidavit by a police officer which is based upon the observation made by a fellow police officer when the two are engaged in a common investigation furnishes a reliable basis for the warrant" (People v. Londono, supra; see also, People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 52, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; People v. Lopez, supra).
Here, the officer who submitted the warrant application stated that he and an undercover officer were working together on a narcotics investigation and that the undercover officer had recently participated in two drug purchase operations involving the premises for which the warrant was sought. This information was sufficient to furnish a reliable basis for the issuance of the warrant and established probable cause (see, People v. Lopez, supra; People v. Londono, supra).
The defendant's contention that the information underlying the warrant application was "stale," is lacking in merit, inasmuch as the last drug buy detailed in the warrant application took place only three days before the warrant was issued (see, People v Schiavo, 162 A.D.2d 639, supra). The defendant's conclusory, unsupported assertion that the officer's warrant affidavit was "untruthful and incredible" is insufficient to trigger the need for a hearing (see, CPL 710.60, [3] [b]; People v. Gayle, 166 A.D.2d 454; People v. Kroll, 162 A.D.2d 717; see also, Franks v Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155; People v. Alfinito, 16 N.Y.2d 181).
There is no basis in the record to disturb the defendant's sentence (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.