Opinion
June 12, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
That branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun recovered from his car by the arresting officer was properly denied. It is well settled that, "`as a general rule, information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of the commission of a specific crime is sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest'" (People v Douglas, 138 A.D.2d 731, 732; see also, People v. Lacen, 154 A.D.2d 398, 399). Based on information provided to the arresting officer by the complainant and another civilian witness that the defendant had just run down the complainant with his car and that he had a gun, the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant and had a basis to search his vehicle (see, People v. Lacen, supra).
The trial court's charge sufficiently instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption that the possession of a weapon "is presumptive evidence of * * * intent to use the same unlawfully against * * * another" (Penal Law § 265.15), and emphasized that the burden of proof remained with the prosecution (see, People v. Sanchez, 192 A.D.2d 562, 563; see also, People v McKenzie, 67 N.Y.2d 695, 696).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Ritter, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.