MATTER OF PIERRE H

Appellant's suppression motion was properly denied. The search in question was based on information supplied by a registered, reliable confidential informant. The court's denial of appellant's request for a Darden hearing ( People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177) to determine whether the informant in fact existed was an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion ( see, People v. Adrion, 82 N.Y.2d 628, 636; People v. Fulton; 58 N.Y.2d 914). Appellant did not make a showing sufficient to raise a question as to the informant's existence and the hearing court was able to satisfy itself as to the informant's existence as a result of the detailed testimony of the warrant application affiant ( see, People v. Ferron, 248 A.D.2d 962, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 879; People v. Christian, 248 A.D.2d 960, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 1006). We further find that appellant received meaningful representation by counsel at the suppression hearing ( see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714).

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.