Opinion
April 12, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly reopened the suppression hearing to allow additional evidence to be heard. The court appropriately permitted the People to adduce farther evidence relative to the issue of probable cause in light of its discretionary ruling to expand the scope of the hearing to include a Dunaway hearing, thereby according the People one full opportunity to prove that the arrest of the defendant was lawful ( see generally, People v. Payton, 51 N.Y.2d 169, 177).
We agree that the police, had probable cause to believe that the defendant was the person referred to in the inculpatory statement of the codefendant as being a participant in another robbery-homicide ( cf., People v. Martin, 221 A.D.2d 568, 569) and that the police properly arrested the defendant in connection with that crime ( see, CPL 140.10 [b]; People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417; People v. Riggins, 161 A.D.2d 813, 814).
The sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.