Opinion
March 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly concluded that the police possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant in connection with an armed robbery. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that defendant was observed operating a vehicle whose appearance and license plate number matched that of a van utilized by the perpetrator of the robbery. Moreover, and contrary to the defendant's contentions, his physical appearance and that of the codefendant matched, in material respects, the descriptions of the perpetrators provided by the complainant (cf., People v Dawkins, 163 A.D.2d 322). The foregoing informational predicate established more probably than not, both that an offense had been committed and that the defendant was its perpetrator (see, People v Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254; People v Colon, 127 A.D.2d 604; People v White, 117 A.D.2d 127, 131).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.