Decided and Entered: May 12, 2026

Ind. No. 73757/22|Appeal No. 6584|Case No. 2024-06557|

Before: Renwick, P.J., Friedman, Kapnick, Pitt-Burke, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

[*1]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), rendered October 21, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years followed by three years of postrelease supervision on the drug possession count and, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of 1½ to 3 years on the weapon possession count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant validly waived his right to appeal. The court's explanation tracked the model colloquy the Court of Appeals endorsed in People v Thomas (34 NY3d 545, 567 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]). "Nothing in the colloquy or written waiver suggested that defendant would forfeit his right to appellate counsel for claims that survived the waiver" (People v Diallo, 242 AD3d 612, 612 [1st Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Defendant's valid waiver forecloses review of his excessive sentence and search warrant claims (see People v Samuels, 195 AD3d 570, 570-571 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1148 [2021]).

As an alternative holding, we reject those claims on the merits. In the search warrant affidavit, the confidential informant's basis of knowledge "was established by the fact that the informant was a direct participant in a drug transaction with defendant" (People v Alba, 279 AD2d 313, 313 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 797 [2001]). The search warrant affidavit established the confidential informant's reliability by "provid[ing] specific information about how the informant had assisted the police in several ways" (People v Auslander, 149 AD3d 640, 640 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1123 [2017]). That background was sufficient because a "verified history of success" with the confidential informant is "[a]ll that is required" to establish an informant's record of "providing accurate information" (People v Calise, 256 AD2d 64, 66 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 851 [1999]). In any event, upon conducting an in camera review of the search warrant application, we find that the search warrant was issued based on probable cause (People v Bleyden, 241 AD3d 1207, 1208 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1050 [2025]).

Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court should have ordered a Darden hearing because he "did not contest the existence of the confidential informant or the accuracy of the police testimony supporting the warrant" (People v Melendez, 243 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2025]). We do not reach defendant's claim in the interest of justice. In any event, because defendant did not contest the confidential informant's identity, no hearing "was necessary" (People v Perez, 301 AD2d 434, 435 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 12, 2026