Opinion
Argued October 19, 1999
November 30, 1999
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered July 9, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Judith S. Stern of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Shulamit Rosenblum of counsel), for respondent.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in failing to conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether he was entitled to full disclosure of a search warrant and supporting documents, which had been redacted to preserve the anonymity of the confidential informant. However, since the defendant did not request that the Supreme Court conduct such a hearing, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, a defendant "has no absolute right to the identity, affidavits and testimony of the confidential informants" ( People v. Delgado, 134 A.D.2d 951; see also, People v. Lee, 205 A.D.2d 708), and the redacted materials given to the defendant provided him with sufficient information to raise an argument that the warrant was not supported by probable cause ( see, People v. Williams, 192 A.D.2d 882; People v. Greco, 187 A.D.2d 151). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly rejected the defendant's challenge to the propriety of the redactions ( cf., People v. Castillo, 80 N.Y.2d 578, cert denied 507 U.S. 1033).
RITTER, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.