"Where hearsay information forms at least in part the basis for probable cause, the information must satisfy the two-part Aguilar-Spinelli test requiring a showing that the informant is reliable and has a basis of knowledge for the information imparted" ( People v. Monroe , 82 A.D.3d 1674, 1675, 919 N.Y.S.2d 666 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 808, 929 N.Y.S.2d 568, 953 N.E.2d 806 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]). As we determined in the appeal of a codefendant ( People v. Colon , 192 A.D.3d 1567, 144 N.Y.S.3d 499 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955, 147 N.Y.S.3d 535, 536, 170 N.E.3d 409, 410 [2021] ), the hearsay information provided by the CI "satisfied both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test. The reliability of the CI was established by the officers’ statements that the CI had given credible and accurate information in the past ..., and the CI's basis of knowledge was established because the police investigation corroborated the information provided by the CI" ( id. at 1568, 144 N.Y.S.3d 499 ; seePeople v. Barnes , 139 A.D.3d 1371, 1373, 30 N.Y.S.3d 787 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 926, 40 N.Y.S.3d 355, 63 N.E.3d 75 [2016] ; Monroe , 82 A.D.3d at 1674-1675, 919 N.Y.S.2d 666 ; see generallyPeople v. Bigelow , 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423-424, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451 [1985] ).

"Where hearsay information forms at least in part the basis for probable cause, the information must satisfy the two-part Aguilar-Spinelli test requiring a showing that the informant is reliable and has a basis of knowledge for the information imparted" (People v Monroe, 82 A.D.3d 1674, 1675 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 808 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]). As we determined in the appeal of a codefendant (People v Colon, 192 A.D.3d 1567 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955 [2021]), the hearsay information provided by the CI "satisfied both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test. The reliability of the CI was established by the officers' statements that the CI had given credible and accurate information in the past..., and the CI's basis of knowledge was established because the police investigation corroborated the information provided by the CI" (id. at 1568; see People v Barnes, 139 A.D.3d 1371, 1373 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 926 [2016]; Monroe, 82 A.D.3d at 1674-1675; see generally People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423-424 [1985]).

Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 192 A.D.3d 1567 (Monroe)

Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 192 A.D.3d 1567 (Monroe)

[appeal No. 1], 219 A.D.3d 1122, 1124 [4th Dept 2023]). Assuming, arguendo, that defendant's challenges to the warrants are "preserved for our review because [their] validity [on those grounds] was expressly decided by the court" (People v Colon, 192 A.D.3d 1567, 1568 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955 [2021]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado, 4 N.Y.3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 N.Y.3d 795 [2005]), we conclude that the warrants, which are "cloak[ed]... with a presumption of validity" (People v DeProspero, 91 A.D.3d 39, 44 [4th Dept 2011], affd 20 N.Y.3d 527 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and are not to "be read in a hypertechnical manner" (People v Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 559 [1975]), were issued upon probable cause and described with sufficient particularity the places or person to be searched and the things to be seized (see People v Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d 396, 400 [1975]; see generally U.S. Const, 4th Amend; NY Const, art 1, § 12). As written, the warrants were" 'specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer[s]'" (People v Brown, 96 N.Y.2d 80, 84 [2001]; see People v Herron, 199 A.D.3d 1476, 1479 [4th Dept 2021]).

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1], [3]), and one count each of kidnapping in the first degree (§ 135.25 [3]), burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30 [4]), robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [4]), and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]). We previously affirmed the judgment convicting one of his codefendants (People v. Myles, 216 A.D.3d 1419, 188 N.Y.S.3d 346 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 936, 194 N.Y.S.3d 773, 215 N.E.3d 1214 [2023]), and we modified the sentence and otherwise affirmed the judgment convicting his other codefendant (People v. Colon, 192 A.D.3d 1567, 144 N.Y.S.3d 499 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955, 147 N.Y.S.3d 535, 536, 170 N.E.3d 409, 410 [2021]). [1] Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient and the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1], [3]), and one count each of kidnapping in the first degree (§ 135.25 [3]), burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30 [4]), robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [4]), and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]). We previously affirmed the judgment convicting one of his codefendants (People v Myles, 216 A.D.3d 1419 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 936 [2023]), and we modified the sentence and otherwise affirmed the judgment convicting his other codefendant (People v Colon, 192 A.D.3d 1567 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955 [2021]).

Additionally, the investigator averred that the CI had performed controlled drug transactions on behalf of law enforcement that had resulted in the arrests of other suspects. Applying the requisite standard of review to the search warrant application, we conclude that "[t]he reliability of the CI was established by the [investigator's] statements that the CI had given credible and accurate information in the past" ( People v. Colon , 192 A.D.3d 1567, 1568, 144 N.Y.S.3d 499 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955, 147 N.Y.S.3d 535, 536, 170 N.E.3d 409, 410 [2021] ).

Additionally, the investigator averred that the CI had performed controlled drug transactions on behalf of law enforcement that had resulted in the arrests of other suspects. Applying the requisite standard of review to the search warrant application, we conclude that "[t]he reliability of the CI was established by the [investigator's] statements that the CI had given credible and accurate information in the past" (People v Colon, 192 A.D.3d 1567, 1568 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955 [2021]).

Here, the factual allegations contained in the two affidavits attached to the warrant application provided probable cause to believe that defendant was operating a drug business out of his residence based on the observations of a confidential informant (CI) and surveillance conducted by the Chautauqua County Sheriff's Office and the Erie County Sheriff's Office (seePeople v. Ferron , 248 A.D.2d 962, 963, 670 N.Y.S.2d 955 [4th Dept. 1998], lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 879, 678 N.Y.S.2d 26, 700 N.E.2d 564 [1998] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the reliability of the CI was established by the statement of one of the officers that the CI had given credible and accurate information in the past (seePeople v. Colon , 192 A.D.3d 1567, 1568, 144 N.Y.S.3d 499 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955, 147 N.Y.S.3d 535, 536, 170 N.E.3d 409, 410 [2021]; People v. Baptista , 130 A.D.3d 1541, 1542, 13 N.Y.S.3d 759 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 991, 38 N.Y.S.3d 102, 59 N.E.3d 1214 [2016] ; see generallyPeople v. Johnson , 66 N.Y.2d 398, 403, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439 [1985] ).