Although preserved for review, we hold, contrary to defendant's contention, that the IAS court properly reviewed the People's ex parte motion for a protective order to deny disclosure of the affidavit supporting the search warrant, having made an in camera examination of the search warrant application and motion, filed a written decision explaining its decision, and ordered a Darden hearing (People v Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177). It was not necessary that the confidential informant be present at the Darden hearing, since he had already been produced before the warrant-issuing Magistrate who was able to establish his existence and reliability (People v Carpenito, 171 A.D.2d 45, 50, lv granted 78 N.Y.2d 1126). We have considered defendant's other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.