Crimes - Informers - Identity of Informer - Hearing

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered July 24, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). We affirm.

Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly denied his request for a Darden hearing. Where, as here, "information is received from a confidential informant but . . . police officer[s] thereafter make[ ] [their] own observations of criminal activity without further employment of the informant, those observations form the basis for probable cause to arrest, rendering a Darden hearing unnecessary" (People v Dudden, 138 AD3d 1452, 1453 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016], cert denied 580 US 1162 [2017]; see People v Crooks, 27 NY3d 609, 614-615 [2016]; People v Farrow, 98 NY2d 629, 631 [2002]).

Defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence are not preserved for our review because defendant made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Piasta, 207 AD3d 1054, 1058 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1190 [2022]). Present—Bannister, J.P., Montour, Smith, Nowak and Hannah, JJ.