Opinion
February 5, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Suppression of the defendant's statements to the police was properly denied as the evidence adduced at the hearing established that there was probable cause for his warrantless arrest. Based on information provided at the scene by a victim of the assault and a bystander, the investigating detective could reasonably conclude that a crime had been committed and that it was "more probable than not" that the defendant was the perpetrator (see, People v. Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254; People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 602). Since the detective had the requisite probable cause, the officer who arrested the defendant for the assault based on a communication from the precinct is deemed to have acted with probable cause (see, People v Rosario, 78 N.Y.2d 583, 588, cert denied 502 U.S. 1109). Accordingly, the statements obtained from the defendant following his arrest were not the product of an illegal arrest.
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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The court properly declined to give a circumstantial evidence charge, as direct evidence of guilt was presented (see, People v Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428; People v. Pilgrim, 208 A.D.2d 868).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.