Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Following denial of his motion to suppress, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. His sole argument on appeal is that the court committed reversible error in failing to comply with CPL 710.60 (6), which requires it to "set forth on the record its findings of facts, its conclusions of law and the reason for its determination." The argument is without merit. County Court stated that it "reviewed the search warrant, supporting documents and transcripts in support thereof, and this Court finds that there was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant." Although the court's statement was terse (cf., People v. Denti, 44 A.D.2d 44, 47), we find that it was in substantial compliance with the statutory requirement. Moreover, it is evident from the record before us that defendant was not entitled to suppression (see, People v. Alfinito, 16 N.Y.2d 181, 186; People v. Brady, 16 N.Y.2d 186, 189; People v. Gonzalez, 116 A.D.2d 661, 662; People v. Russo, 45 A.D.2d 1040). County Court properly concluded that the search warrant was issued upon probable cause. The informant's sworn statement was properly considered by the suppression court and need not have been disclosed to defendant (see, People v. Peterson, 159 A.D.2d 983; People v. Diaz, 147 A.D.2d 912, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1014; People v. Delgado, 134 A.D.2d 951, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 895). The issuing Magistrate properly relied upon the sworn statement of the informant who was present when the warrant was issued and this statement was sufficient to establish probable cause (see, People v. Sullivan, 56 N.Y.2d 378, 384; People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225, 233-234; People v. Taylor, 140 A.D.2d 964, revd on other grounds 73 N.Y.2d 683).