Opinion
February 4, 1994
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Callahan, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly questioned a sworn juror about his physical condition in the presence of counsel and in the absence of defendant (see, People v. Johnson, 192 A.D.2d 674, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 720; see also, People v. Mullen, 44 N.Y.2d 1).
The court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing to determine the competency of a witness to testify. There was no indication that the witness did not possess the ability to observe and recall what she saw.
We reject defendant's argument that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The officer's observation of the informant as he conducted a controlled buy of the cocaine from defendant was sufficient to satisfy the reliability requirement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 U.S. 108; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410; see also, People v. Comforto, 62 N.Y.2d 725, 727; People v. Daniels, 172 A.D.2d 766, 767, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1010).
We have reviewed the remaining issues raised in both the main brief and the pro se supplemental brief and we conclude that they lack merit.