Opinion
December 8, 1997
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (DeRiggi, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly determined that there was probable cause for his arrest. "`It is well settled that information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest'" (People v. Martin, 221 A.D.2d 568, quoting People v. Burton, 194 A.D.2d 683). The complainant provided the police with a description of the individual who had robbed her, and was on her way to the police station when she spotted the defendant and a companion on the street, pointed in their direction, and began shouting, "[t]hat's the guy". Under these circumstances, the hearing court's conclusion that the officers possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant, who matched the complainant's description of the perpetrator, is amply supported by the record (see, People v. Pagan, 184 A.D.2d 738; People v. McCain, 134 A.D.2d 623; People v. Covert, 134 A.D.2d 444).
The defendant's further contention that his statements to the police should have been suppressed because he asserted his right to remain silent during questioning is raised for the first time on appeal, and is thus unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Dunn, 85 N.Y.2d 956, 967; People v. Smith, 174 A.D.2d 701; People v. Clink, 143 A.D.2d 838). In any event, there is no merit to the defendant's claim that he invoked his right to remain silent by agreeing to speak to the officers, but advising them that he did not wish to give a written statement (see, People v. Hendricks, 222 A.D.2d 74, 80, affd 90 N.Y.2d 956).
Furthermore, 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 defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.