Opinion
November 26, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Doolittle, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence presented to the hearing court clearly demonstrated that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant (CPL 140.10 [b]). The investigating officers were provided with factual information concerning the defendant's possession of a stolen silver tea set and a large amount of assorted property which would lead a reasonable person possessing the officers' expertise to conclude that an offense had been committed and that the defendant was the perpetrator (People v. White, 117 A.D.2d 127, 131; cf., People v. Dawkins, 163 A.D.2d 322). Probable cause for a warrantless arrest may be provided, in whole or in part, through hearsay information (People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398). The correlation between the information known to the police and that discovered through the informants' statements was sufficient to satisfy the officers of their reliability (People v. Crayon, 139 A.D.2d 840; People v. Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483). The arresting officer who received this information in the field was entitled to presume that it was reliable (People v. Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408, 416).
The defendant's assertion that his pretrial motion to sever the charges against him was improperly denied is without merit. Consolidation of the charges pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (b) was proper (see, People v. Diaz, 122 A.D.2d 279; People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.