Opinion
October 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that on the night of July 21, 1987, the police responded to a radio report of shots being exchanged between the occupants of a black Z-28 automobile and three pedestrians at a specified location. While arresting the driver of the automobile the officers were approached by an identified civilian who indicated that three armed men had just broken into his father's house and were still there. Several officers proceeded to the house with the individual, and while there at least one of the officers observed three men, two of whom were carrying guns, kick open the back door and run out of the house. The defendant was among those men, and was arrested at the scene. He subsequently made an inculpatory statement and was identified by several individuals in connection with this and other crimes, the convictions of which form the basis of this appeal.
Based upon the information provided by an identified civilian witness, and upon their own observations of criminality, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v Bartlett, 146 A.D.2d 705; People v. Ellis, 144 A.D.2d 480). Thus the hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress his statement, the identification testimony, and the physical evidence recovered from him at the time of the arrest which was based on the ground that his arrest was made without probable cause. Lawrence, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.