Opinion
Argued March 30, 1989
Decided May 4, 1989
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, George Bundy Smith, J., Thomas Galligan, J.
Arza Rayches Feldman and Steven A. Feldman for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Kathleen E. Fay and Norman Barclay of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree after his motion to suppress certain inculpatory evidence obtained after his arrest was denied. On this appeal, he argues only that his arrest was effected without the requisite probable cause because the arresting officers, who relied on information provided by a bystander, failed to ascertain the informant's basis of knowledge before taking action (see, People v Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 491; People v Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231, 237, 241; see also, Spinelli v United States, 393 U.S. 410). However, although one of the arresting officers testified that he did not know the source of the informant's knowledge at the time of the arrest, the other arresting officer specifically recalled having been told by the informant that he had obtained his information from the victim of the crime. Consequently, there is support for the hearing court's undisturbed finding of probable cause, and defendant's argument suggests no basis for reversal (see, People v Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470, 477-478).
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.