Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of his omnibus motion which was to controvert the search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized pursuant thereto. The warrant application was accompanied by the affidavit of a police officer which was supported by the sworn statement of a named informant. The informant's statement setting out in detail criminal activity personally observed by him was a sufficient predicate for a finding of probable cause (People v Hicks, 38 N.Y.2d 90; People v Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225).
Moreover, the defendant's contention that an in-camera hearing should have been held to determine the reliability or veracity of the informant's statement is without merit. "[A] defendant is entitled to a hearing in which he may challenge the truthfulness of the allegations in the affidavit supporting a search warrant only where he attacks the veracity of the police officer affiant, and not where * * * the credibility of the source of information is challenged" (People v Slaughter, 37 N.Y.2d 596, 600; see also; People v Solimine, 18 N.Y.2d 477, 479).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and found them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber and Copertino, JJ., concur.