Opinion
May 23, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that his confession should be suppressed as the product of an unlawful arrest. Once the police were told by identified citizens that they saw the defendant commit a crime, they had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v. Butler, 201 A.D.2d 662; People v. Pagan, 184 A.D.2d 738). Therefore, the statements the defendant made after being given his Miranda warnings following his lawful arrest were admissible.
We further find that there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the complainant's in-court identification of the defendant should have been suppressed. Even if we were to accept the defendant's claim regarding the photographic identification, upon review of the hearing minutes we would agree with the hearing court that there was an independent source for the victim's in-court identification (see, People v. Hyatt, 162 A.D.2d 713; People v. Dixon, 158 A.D.2d 467; People v. Rosario, 155 A.D.2d 563; People v. Androvett, 135 A.D.2d 640).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.