In People v. Cantre, 95 AD2d 522 [2d Dept 1983], affirmed 65 NY2d 790, 482 N.E.2d 923, 493 N.Y.S.2d 127 [1985]) the Informant was "being paid for the Information" he provided to the police (id p529) by means of a reward Nevertheless, the Court found that his information was "presumptively reliable" because he was an "identified private citizen". It rejected the argument of the dissenting justice, who found that the informant should be "stripped of the citizen-informant label" because while he "may not have been the classic professional Informant, ie., constantly giving the police tips for money based on 'underworld' connections or in exchange for leniency", he "Is neither the classic eyewitness citizen reporting a crime solely for the good of the community, nor a crime victim" (Id. p529). In rejecting this stance and finding the informant "presumptively reliable", the Court reiterated the standard that "Identified private citizens providing law enforcement officers with information pertaining to criminal activity are to be treated differently from unnamed confidential paid Informants", holding that the "stringent tests of credibility" obligating the police to establish an informant's reliability "are applicable to the unidentified, paid professional informant" (Id. p526) but not to the citizen for crediting...reliability" (Id. p526).