The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v Mink, 237 A.D.2d 664, 667).

Accordingly, no hearing was required, and the motion was properly denied (seePeople v. Degree, 186 A.D.3d 501, 504, 128 N.Y.S.3d 631 ). The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (seePeople v. Mink, 237 A.D.2d 664, 667, 655 N.Y.S.2d 115 ). DUFFY, J.P., CONNOLLY, HINDS–RADIX and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v Mink, 237 A.D.2d 664, 667).

" While the majority relies on the Aguilar-Spinelli test to claim that a question of fact exists as to whether the information Ryan received during his investigation was reliable, the fact is that this standard has been held to be inapplicable to testimony obtained from private citizens who have no interest or ulterior motive that could raise concerns about their credibility ( see People v Taylor, 73 NY2d 683, 688; People v Hicks, 38 NY2d 90, 93; People v Walker, 244 AD2d 796, 797; People v Mink, 237 AD2d 664, 666; People v David, 234 AD2d 787, 787-788, Iv denied 89 NY2d 1034; People v Doyle, 222 AD2d 875, 875, Iv denied 88 NY2d 878). In fact, this Court has found that testimony coming from an identified citizen is "presumed to be personally reliable" ( People v Bahr, 35 AD3d 909, 911 [citation omitted], Iv denied 8 NY3d 919; see People v Parris, 83 NY2d 342, 350; People v Hetrick, 80 NY2d 344, 349), and that such eyewitness accounts are, by themselves, sufficient to establish probable cause to "support a warrantless arrest" ( People v Bailey, 295 AD2d at 759; see People v Bourdon, 258 AD2d 810, 811, Iv denied 93 NY2d 897; People v David, 234 AD2d at 788; People v Renaudette, 185 AD2d 450, 451, lv denied 81 NY2d 846). As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen "provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain," the two-prong Aguilar-Spinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliabl

The record establishes that a confidential informant appeared before the issuing Magistrate and testified under oath to the truthfulness of the factual assertions contained in the warrant application. Notably, the Court of Appeals has observed that "[t]he Aguilar standard is inapplicable * * * when there is presented to the issuing Magistrate a sworn statement of the factual information sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrant's issuance, made by one * * * as to whom the data is firsthand information by reason of his personal observations and participation in the events described" (People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225, 234; see also, People v. Taylor, 73 N.Y.2d 683, 688; People v. Hicks, 38 N.Y.2d 90, 93; People v. Walker, 244 A.D.2d 796; People v. Mink, 237 A.D.2d 664; People v. David, 234 A.D.2d 787; People v. Doyle, 222 A.D.2d 875). Here, the warrant application, taken together with the informant's sworn statement, given under penalty of perjury (see, People v. Brown, 40 N.Y.2d 183, 188), demonstrated that the information provided was obtained "by reason of [the informant's], personal observations and participation in the events described" (People v. Bartolomeo, supra, at 234), which established probable cause supporting issuance of the warrant (People v. Hicks, supra).

The informant testified, under penalty of perjury ( see, People v. Brown, 40 N.Y.2d 183, 188), inter alia, that he had personally observed weapons and other contraband in the defendant's apartment. These personal observations, taken together with the additional information before the Magistrate, established probable cause supporting the issuance of the warrant ( see, People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225, 234; see also, People v. Taylor, 73 N.Y.2d 683, 688; People v. Hicks, 38 N.Y.2d 90, 93; People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423; People v. Walker, 244 A.D.2d 796; People v. Mink, 237 A.D.2d 664; People v. David, 234 A.D.2d 787; People v. Doyle, 222 A.D.2d 875). O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Accordingly, no hearing was required, and the motion was properly denied (see People v Degree, 186 A.D.3d 501, 504). The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v Mink, 237 A.D.2d 664, 667). DUFFY, J.P., CONNOLLY, HINDS-RADIX and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v Mink, 237 A.D.2d 664, 667).

Initially, the Court will decide the question of Mr. Macfarlane's arrest. The People have the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's arrest was based on probable cause ( People v. Mink, 237 A.D.2d 664, 655 N.Y.S.2d 115 [3rd Dept., 1997]; People v. Travis, 162 A.D.2d 807, 557 N.Y.S.2d 975 [3rd Dept., 1990]). A review of the proof demonstrates that this question must be answered emphatically in the affirmative.