Opinion
January 29, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the identification of him as the robber from a photographic array by all three complainants was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest him for the robbery (see, People v. Brewster, 100 A.D.2d 134, affd 63 N.Y.2d 419). The defendant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that his arrest was made in violation of the rule set forth in Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573) is not preserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's further contention that the court should not have permitted the complainant Thomas Dundon to make an in-court identification must also be rejected. During the course of the robbery, Mr. Dundon was able to observe the defendant from a distance of only 1 1/2 to 2 feet away in a well-lit room. Mr. Dundon immediately identified the defendant in a photographic array and a lineup, both of which the court correctly determined to be free of any suggestiveness. Furthermore, the mere fact that Mr. Dundon was related to the other two complainants did not render his testimony so inherently unreliable that his in-court identification of the defendant should have been precluded (People v. Frawley, 131 A.D.2d 504, 505).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.