Opinion
March 27, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's argument that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause is without merit. A search warrant must be supported by a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed, or that evidence of criminality may be found in a certain place (see, People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417). Moreover, a search warrant may be validly based upon hearsay information found to be reliable (see, People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225). In this regard, an affidavit by a police officer which is based upon the observations made by a fellow police officer when the two are engaged in a common investigation furnishes a reliable basis for the warrant (see, People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 52, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; People v. Horowitz, 21 N.Y.2d 55, 59; People v. Cuyler, 44 A.D.2d 881; see also, People v Jennings, 54 N.Y.2d 518, 522).
In the case at bar, Police Officer William Maher stated in his affidavit requesting the warrant that his fellow police officer, Paul Grutzner, who was involved with Maher in an investigation of the defendant, heard an informant arrange to purchase a quantity of cocaine from the defendant. The purchase was to take place on August 14, 1981, between 1:00 and 2:00 P.M., in Tarrytown. This information was sufficient to furnish probable cause to issue the warrant (see, People v. Petralia, supra; People v. Horowitz, supra; People v. Cuyler, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and have been found to be either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Di Raffaelle, 55 N.Y.2d 234) or without merit (see, People v. Gallimore, 135 A.D.2d 727; People v. Phillips, 55 A.D.2d 661). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.