Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred by denying his motion to suppress inculpatory statements as his arrest was not predicated upon probable cause. However, the record establishes that the defendant was arrested after witnesses to the instant homicide implicated him to investigating detectives. Moreover, at least one witness identified the defendant's photograph from a photographic array. Pursuant to these eyewitness identifications, the police clearly had probable cause to effect the defendant's arrest (see, People v Crews, 162 A.D.2d 462; People v Brown, 146 A.D.2d 793; People v Douglas, 138 A.D.2d 731). Accordingly, the defendant's inculpatory statements, which followed numerous administrations and waivers of his constitutional rights (see, People v Glasper, 160 A.D.2d 723), were not tainted as having been the products of an unlawful arrest.

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.