Opinion
February 16, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Based upon our review of the record we find that the search warrant specifically authorized the search of apartment four and the search was, therefore, proper.
We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to order the production of the confidential informant in view of the fact that he did not witness the actual sale on the first occasion nor was he physically present at the subsequent sales (see, People v Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, 169, 173, cert denied 419 U.S. 1012; People v Forte, 123 A.D.2d 641, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 827; People v Younger, 118 A.D.2d 673, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 673).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.