Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the written and videotaped statements he made to the police and the bullets seized from his apartment should have been suppressed as the product of an unlawful arrest. The defendant was not arrested in his residence; thus, his claim of a violation of Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573) is unpersuasive (see, People v. Rosario, 186 A.D.2d 598; People v. Lewis, 172 A.D.2d 775). Moreover, the police were lawfully at the defendant's apartment to execute a valid search warrant and also had probable cause to arrest him. Since the requirements for a search warrant were satisfied, there was no constitutional infirmity in the failure of the police to also secure an arrest warrant (see, People v. Battista, 197 A.D.2d 486; Jones v. City County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206; see also, People v. Tondryk, 176 A.D.2d 1194; People v. Keller, 148 A.D.2d 958).
We further note that the defendant was not entitled to disclosure of the informant's identity or to a redacted transcript of the informant's testimony before the issuing Magistrate to controvert the search warrant or challenge the legality of his arrest (see, People v. Castillo, 80 N.Y.2d 578, cert denied ___ US ___, 113 S Ct 1854; People v. Battista, supra; People v. Carpenito, 171 A.D.2d 45, affd 80 N.Y.2d 65). The suppression court properly reviewed, in camera, the search warrant and accompanying papers as well as the sealed minutes of the informant's testimony and found that there was probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. In addition, the defendant received a copy of the search warrant and accompanying affidavit.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.