Opinion
December 30, 1996.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
On appeal from a judgment convicting him of two counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15) and one count each of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05) and petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25), defendant contends that the police officer lacked probable cause to arrest him, thu s requiring suppression of identification testimony. That contention lacks merit.
It is well settled tha t neither mere presence at a scene of criminal activity nor flight from the police establishes probable cause ( see, Ybarra v Illinois, 444 US 85, 91, reh denied 444 US 1049; People v Howard, 50 NY2d 583, cert denied 449 US 1023). The record in this case, however, establishes tha t the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant based upon his observation of criminal activity on the part of defendant and his three companions ( see, CPL 140.10 [b]; People v Maldonado, 86 NY2d 631, 635; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423; People v Carrasquillo, 54 NY2d 248, 254). Contrary to defendant's contention, the decision in Ornelas v United States (517 US ", 116 S Ct 1657) does not require a different result. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J."Robbery, 1st Degree.)