Opinion
January 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, his arrest was predicated upon probable cause. In response to a radio bulletin of a robbery in progress, the police arrived upon the scene and were met by an eyewitness who pointed out the defendant as one of the alleged robbers. This information, provided by an identified citizen, accusing another of the commission of a crime, was sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest (see, People v Douglas, 138 A.D.2d 731, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 858; People v Sanders, 79 A.D.2d 688; People v Crespo, 70 A.D.2d 661). Moreover, the defendant's statement to Officer Oberweis was properly ruled admissible as a spontaneous utterance made by the defendant while the officer was merely recording pedigree information (see, People v Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476), and after he had been advised of his rights. There is no indication in the record that the defendant's statement was the result of even subtle coercion (see, People v Zehner, 112 A.D.2d 465, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 619).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v Barnett, 136 A.D.2d 555, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 966; People v Bratescu, 115 A.D.2d 655; People v Ores, 108 A.D.2d 931 ). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.