Opinion
February 21, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15).
The appellant's contention that he was illegally arrested, and that the evidence recovered from that arrest was improperly produced at the fact-finding hearing, is meritless. The police had probable cause to arrest the appellant after he was observed in close proximity to the scene of the crime and to the time of its commission and his appearance matched a sufficiently detailed description of the perpetrator (see, People v. Blount, 143 A.D.2d 924). Furthermore, the description broadcast by the sending officer provided probable cause for the arrest as it satisfied the Aguilar-Spinelli test. At the suppression hearing, the complaining witness, an identified citizen informant and thus presumably reliable, testified as to the basis of her belief that the person she described had committed a crime (see, People v Parris, 83 N.Y.2d 342). In addition, the appellant's book bag was the subject of a proper search as the search was contemporaneous with his arrest, the book bag was within his immediate control, and there was reason to believe that the appellant could gain possession of a weapon or destroy or conceal evidence located therein (see, People v. Gokey, 60 N.Y.2d 309; People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 454; People v. Evans, 43 N.Y.2d 160; People v. Edney, 201 A.D.2d 498).
The appellant's contention that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive, and thus the identification testimony should have been suppressed, is without merit. Although the appellant contends that he was identified, along with the other suspects, while standing with his legs spread, his hands resting against a car, and his book bag with the stolen property at his feet, these facts were insufficient to make the identification unduly suggestive when the identification occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to the commission of the crime (see, People v. Sturgis, 199 A.D.2d 549; People v. Grassia, 195 A.D.2d 607; People v. Hawkins, 188 A.D.2d 616; People v Tarrat, 161 A.D.2d 613). O'Brien, J.P., Lawrence, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.