Ordered that the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPLR 460.50 N.Y.C.P.L.R.(5).
A review of the affidavit supporting the application for the search warrant demonstrates that there was sufficient information before the issuing Judge to support his determination that probable cause existed to believe that the controlled substances, drug paraphernalia and other items described in the warrant could be found at the address set forth therein (see, People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v Wirchansky, 41 N.Y.2d 130; People v Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 559). Therefore, the warrant was to be presumed valid, and the burden of proving otherwise fell upon the challenger. As the defendant failed to demonstrate that there was an abuse of discretion by the issuing Judge, the validity of the warrant was properly upheld by the hearing court (see, People v Manuli, 104 A.D.2d 386). Mangano, J.P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.