Opinion
April 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his guilt under Indictment No. 1677/92 was not proven by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt under Indictment No. 1677/92 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Although the circumstances of the defendant's arrest could have been more fully developed at the hearing, the testimony presented was nonetheless sufficient to establish that the arrest was supported by probable cause. That the information leading to the defendant's arrest was supplied by an arrestee who was himself a suspect, having been found in possession of the stolen car, does not make the information inherently unreliable (see, People v Nunez, 186 A.D.2d 764). On the contrary, an informant in custody and facing charges has a strong motivation to tell the truth, since misleading the police would worsen his predicament (see, People v Comforto, 62 N.Y.2d 725, 727; People v Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 490).
Here, the informant's reliability was demonstrated since the police, by accompanying the informant to the rendezvous with the defendant, corroborated by their own investigation and personal observation the informant's claim that he had arranged to meet the defendant in order to return the car in question (see, People v Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231, 237). The defendant concedes that the informant's basis of knowledge was never in dispute since plainly, the informant was in the car when he was arrested and therefore had personal knowledge of who had given him the car. Accordingly, the hearing court properly concluded that the informant was reliable and that he disclosed a sufficient basis for his knowledge (see, Spinelli v United States, 393 U.S. 410; Aguilar v Texas, 378 U.S. 108; People v Parris, 83 N.Y.2d 342).
The defendant's sentences were not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83). Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.