Opinion
224 A.D.2d 703 639 N.Y.S.2d 428 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Marcus ADAMS, Appellant. Supreme Court of New York, Second Department February 26, 1996.
Andrew E. MacAskill, Hicksville, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola (Karen Wigle Weiss and Douglas Noll, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BALLETTA, THOMPSON and HART, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.), rendered December 20, 1993, convicting him of assault in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to the police.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Probable cause may be supplied, in whole or in part, through hearsay information (see, People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439). Hearsay information provided to the police by an identified citizen is presumed to be reliable (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 339-340, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70; People v. Crowder, 198 A.D.2d 369, 603 N.Y.S.2d 343). Such information may serve as the basis for a warrantless arrest if it appears, in the language of the Aguilar-Spinelli test, that the informant has some basis of knowledge for the information transmitted to the police (see, People v. Johnson, supra, at 402, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439).
The informant in this case, an identified citizen, was reliable and, as the victim of the crime, he had some basis of knowledge for the information that he gave to the police. Thus, he provided the police with probable cause to arrest the defendant, and the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to the police was properly denied.
The testimony regarding a prior uncharged crime by the defendant was properly admitted into evidence. The uncharged crime was so inextricably interwoven with the admissible evidence that it was necessary to understand the other parts of the testimony (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 361, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59, citing People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 401 N.Y.S.2d 479, 372 N.E.2d 320).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ) or without merit.