Opinion
May 2, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Pirro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the County Court erroneously denied suppression of evidence and statements because he was arrested for harassment, which is a violation (see, Penal Law former § 240.25 [1]), in contravention of the mandate of CPL 140.10 (1) (a) which requires such an offense (see, CPL 1.20) be committed in the officer's presence for a warrantless arrest to be validly effectuated. Accordingly, he asserts, since the arrest was invalid, statements made by him as well as drugs recovered incident to that arrest should have been suppressed. However, notwithstanding that the arresting officers subjectively believed that the defendant had committed only harassment, a violation, the information provided in person by the identified complainant (see, e.g., People v. Cotton, 143 A.D.2d 680) provided the officers with sufficient objective facts constituting probable cause to justify an arrest for crimes including assault in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 120.00). It is well-settled that the subjective beliefs of the arresting officers are not controlling on the issue of whether probable cause exists for an arrest (see, People v. Green, 103 A.D.2d 362). Rather, it is for the court to make this determination upon a review of all relevant objective information known to the officer at the time of the arrest (see, People v. Lopez, 95 A.D.2d 241; see also, People v. Wheeler, 123 A.D.2d 411). In this case, the complainant's contemporaneous accusations that the defendant had physically assaulted her and had previously attempted to hit her with a chair were sufficient to provide the officers with probable cause to arrest the defendant on felony charges. As such, the criminal acts need not have been committed in the officer's presence and the arrest and search incident thereto were lawful. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.