Opinion
October 19, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the police acted on inherently unreliable or suspect information in effectuating his arrest, and that, therefore, his statements should have been suppressed as the fruit of an arrest premised on less than probable cause. We find this contention to be without merit. The police obtained the information on which they relied in a face-to-face interview (see, People v. Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20, 28) with an identified individual who resided in the apartment where the killing occurred and who related what he observed during its commission (cf., People v. Hicks, 38 N.Y.2d 90; People v. Moore, 32 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 414 U.S. 1011). The information so obtained was at least circumstantially reliable (see, People v. Marin, 91 A.D.2d 616, 617) and here provided a sufficient predicate for the defendant's arrest.
Evidence of the defendant's prior threat, his inculpatory statements, and the evidence that the victim died of asphyxia by strangulation and a stab wound inflicted with great force established that the defendant intended to cause death. We are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
Finally, we do not find the sentence to be either harsh or excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.