Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is a strong judicial preference for search warrants ( see People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 558; People v Corr, 28 AD3d 574; People v Williams, 249 AD2d 343, 344). "The search warrant application must provide the court with sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that evidence of illegal activity will be present at the specific time and place of the search" ( People v Williams, 249 AD2d at 344).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of his omnibus motion which was to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in execution of the warrant. The warrant application was accompanied by the affidavit of a police officer, which was supported by the sworn statement of a named informant, who had previously given the police officer reliable information. The informant's statement setting out in detail criminal activity personally observed by him was a sufficient predicate for a finding of probable cause ( see People v Corr, 28 AD3d 574; People v Anderson, 190 AD2d 741).
Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to an Alfinito hearing ( see People v Alfinito, 16 NY2d 181; see also Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154) since, in his omnibus motion, he challenged only the veracity of the informant, and not the veracity of the police officer affiant ( see People v Slaughter, 37 NY2d 596, 600; People v Solimine, 18 NY2d 477, 479; People v Williams, 249 AD2d at 344). In addition, the defendant's contention that an in camera hearing should have been held to determine the reliability or veracity of the informant is without merit ( see People v Anderson, 190 AD2d at 742). "[A] defendant is entitled to a hearing in which he may challenge the truthfulness of the allegations in the affidavit supporting a search warrant only where he attacks the veracity of the police officer affiant and not where . . . the credibility of the source of information is challenged" ( People v Slaughter, 37 NY2d at 600; see People v Anderson, 190 AD2d at 742).