Opinion
May 8, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the search warrant was not based upon probable cause. We disagree. "In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit in support of a search warrant application, New York courts must apply the Aguilar-Spinelli `two-prong' test in evaluating hearsay information from an informant (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 U.S. 108; Spinelli v United States, 393 U.S. 410) rather than the later-announced Gates `totality of the circumstances' test (Illinois v Gates, 462 U.S. 213; see, People v Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635). `Under this test, the application for a search warrant must demonstrate to the issuing Magistrate (i) the veracity or reliability of the source of the information, and (ii) the basis of the informant's knowledge' ([People v Griminger,] supra, at 639)" (People v Naranjo, 174 A.D.2d 546, 548).
"Here, the * * * [confidential informant] provided information that was contrary to [his] own penal interests, as his knowledge was based upon [his] own prior involvement with the * * * [instant] criminal enterprise" (People v Messina, 209 A.D.2d 642, 643; People v Woolnough, 180 A.D.2d 837, 838, quoting People v Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231, 237). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly held that the affidavit in support of the search warrant application was sufficient (cf., People v Cassella, 143 A.D.2d 192).
Furthermore, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it precluded the defendant from presenting an alibi witnesses on the ground that the defendant did not provide adequate notice under CPL 250.20, since the defendant did not proffer a sufficient reason for his failure to comply (see, People v Toro, 198 A.D.2d 532; People v Caputo, 175 A.D.2d 290; People v Marshall, 170 A.D.2d 463).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Joy, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.