Opinion
January 9, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On May 6, 1985, at approximately 4:00 P.M., the complaining witness, John Elmore, was robbed by the defendant, at gunpoint, in the vicinity of West Columbia and North Franklin Streets in Hempstead, New York. The complainant knew the defendant, who was the brother of an acquaintance. When the police arrived at the scene the complainant provided them with a description of the clothing worn by the defendant as well as the defendant's surname. The police and the victim proceeded to drive around the Hempstead area in search of the defendant. While en route to the police precinct, the defendant was spotted near a bus terminal. The police approached and then arrested the defendant after he identified himself.
The defendant contends that his arrest was not predicated upon probable cause but emanated from an unduly suggestive identification procedure. We find no merit to this contention. Rather, the record reveals that the police did not seek to establish the defendant's identity by means of any identification procedure since the victim already knew the defendant. Thus, the defendant's identity was not at issue (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543). In any event, even if we were to find that an identification procedure was involved, it was not unduly suggestive. We further find that the defendant's arrest was predicated upon probable cause, in light of the totality of the information possessed by the police, including the defendant's name, a description of his clothing and the location of his arrest as well as the fact that the victim had informed the police that the defendant was the perpetrator (People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v Ortiz, 143 A.D.2d 850).
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ. concur.