Opinion
November 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
It is well settled that a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant when he or she has probable cause to believe that such person has committed a crime, and probable cause may be supplied, in whole or in part, through hearsay information (see, People v Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398). However, before probable cause based on hearsay can be found, it must appear "that the informant has some basis of knowledge for the information he transmitted to the police and that the information is reliable" (People v Johnson, supra, at 402). Statements against penal interest have been deemed sufficient to assure reliability "when assessing hearsay information necessary to support a probable cause determination" (People v Johnson, supra, at 403; see, People v Comforto, 62 N.Y.2d 725). Here, the informant provided information that was contrary to his own penal interests as his knowledge was based upon his own prior involvement with the instant criminal enterprise (see, People v Delarosa, 215 A.D.2d 496; People v Messina, 209 A.D.2d 642; cf., People v Cassella, 143 A.D.2d 192). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Additionally, once the defendant was lawfully arrested, "it was proper for the police to place him in a lineup for a separate, unrelated crime" (People v Griffin, 161 A.D.2d 799, 800; see, People v Whitaker, 64 N.Y.2d 347, cert denied 474 U.S. 830; cf., People v Carrouthers, 131 A.D.2d 770).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.