Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the search warrant application contained ample specific factual allegations of criminal conduct to justify the issuance of the warrant ( see, e.g., People v. Santarelli, 148 A.D.2d 775). Furthermore, the People demonstrated that the confidential informant who provided information to the police was reliable and had personal knowledge of the unlawful activity alleged in the application, since that information was corroborated in every relevant respect by the personal observations of police officers who utilized the informant in conducting three controlled drug "buys" at the subject location over the two-day period immediately preceding the issuance of the warrant ( see generally, People v. DiFalco, 80 N.Y.2d 693; People v. Comforto, 62 N.Y.2d 725; People v. Parker, 218 A.D.2d 713; People v. Lisk, 216 A.D.2d 851; People v. Amiel, 213 A.D.2d 657). Accordingly, the warrant was supported by probable cause.
The defendants remaining challenges to the validity of the search warrant are either unpreserved far appellate review or without merit.
By pleading guilty before the County Court could conduct a hearing on his application to suppress inculpatory statements, the defendant has foreclosed appellate review of any issue regarding the voluntariness or admissibility of those statements ( see, e.g, People v. Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686; People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772; People v. Charleston, 54 N.Y.2d 622).
Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio JJ., concur.