Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The subject warrant, which contained both a correct and incorrect street address on its face, was valid under the circumstances since "there was no reasonable possibility that the wrong premises would be searched regardless of the error contained in the warrant" ( People v. Graham, 220 A.D.2d 769, 772, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 942). The affidavit in support of the warrant application listed the correct address three times and the officer who both applied for and executed the warrant had personal knowledge of the place to be searched, making it inconceivable that he would have searched a premises more than 100 blocks away as a result of an obvious typographical error.
Concur — Lerner, P.J., Sullivan, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.