People v. MonkPeople v. Monk
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant‘s application for a Darden hearing (see People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177 [1974]), in light of the fact that one of the confidential informants appeared before the issuing magistrate and gave sworn testimony concerning the events in question (see People v Serrano, 93 NY2d 73, 77 [1999]). The defendant‘s contention, in effect, that the County Court violated the plea agreement by sentencing him without a positive laboratory report is unpreserved for appellate review (see