OPINION OF THE COURT
JUDITH LIEB, J. The issue before this court is whether a court may, on a
Dunaway hearing, determine whether there is probable cause to support a warrantless arrest without the participation of the defendant or the defendant's counsel. For the reasons that follow, this court concludes that it has authority to do so in appropriate circumstances, which are present here. Case law establishes that a court can determine the existence of probable cause for issuance of a search warrant by examining the underlying documents without providing copies to the defendant in order to protect the safety of a confidential informant. The issue here is whether that principle applies so as to authorize a court to determine probable cause for a warrantless arrest by reliance on the documents underlying issuance of a search warrant, without providing copies to the defendant.
FACTS
On January 20, 1999, the defendant was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance.[1] On that day, six officers from the New York City Police Department executed a search warrant at apartment 8D of 225 Willis Avenue in Bronx County. According to the complaint, one officer saw "a hand" throw out of a window of the apartment a tin container, which was later found to contain nine bags of cocaine. Further, according to the complaint, the defendant was the only person inside the apartment when the officers entered. On May 21, 1999, the defendant filed an omnibus motion. In that motion, he sought to suppress his postarrest statements on the ground that they were not voluntary, and were obtained in violation of Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) and People v Huntley (15 NY2d 72 [1965]). The defendant did not, as part of that motion, seek to suppress his statements on the ground that they were made following an illegal arrest (Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]). The defendant did move to suppress certain physical evidence, namely, the nine bags of cocaine and an unspecified sum of United States currency, informant's information. (People v Coffey, supra, 12 NY2d, at 452.) The information provided by the informant, some of which had been corroborated prior to the execution of the search warrant, together with Detective Tully's observation of the defendant in the apartment upon his entry, provided probable cause to arrest the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to suppress his statements, to the extent predicated on Dunaway, is denied. [1] The defendant was originally charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 220.16 (1), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in violation of Penal Law § 220.03. On April 23, 1999, the section 220.16 (1) charge was dismissed. [2] References preceded by "T" refer to the transcript of the hearing held on November 9, 1999. [3] The Huntley hearing was adjourned. [4] In the absence of direct authority from the Court of Appeals or the Appellate Division, First Department, this court is bound by the decision in Lee (supra; People v Brisotti, 169 Misc 2d 672 [App Term, 1st Dept 1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 940 [1997]; People v Shakur, 215 AD2d 184 [1st Dept 1995]). [5] This court does not need to conduct its own in camera examination of the informant in duplication of the examination already conducted by Judge Birnbaum on the application for issuance of the search warrant. (See, People v Serrano, 93 NY2d 73 [1999], supra.) As found by Judge Dawson, Judge Birnbaum confirmed that the informant existed, was reliable, had been examined "under oath," and had an acceptable basis of knowledge for the information provided.