Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The trial court acted properly in limiting the cross-examination of an arresting officer at the suppression hearing in order to protect the identity of the confidential informant ( see, People v. Adrion, 82 N.Y.2d 628, 634; People v. Castillo, 80 N.Y.2d 578, 583-584, cert denied 507 U.S. 1033; People v. Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, cert denied 419 U.S. 1012; People v. Huggins, 36 N.Y.2d 827; People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177, 181). In addition, the summary report issued by the court satisfied the requirements of People v. Darden ( supra, at 181).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions under Indictment No. 3645/94 is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 18-19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 421; People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt under that indictment was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.