Opinion
June 5, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that information provided by an identified citizen accusing another of a crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest (see, People v Bero, 139 A.D.2d 581, 584; People v. Sanders, 79 A.D.2d 688). In this case, the complainant accompanied the arresting officers in a patrol vehicle to search the surrounding area for his attacker within a short time after the robbery. Several blocks from the site where the robbery occurred, the complainant pointed to a man walking down the street and identified the defendant as the perpetrator. Thus, the arresting officers had probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the robbery and the officers could properly arrest him (see, People v. McCain, 134 A.D.2d 623, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 957; People v. Evans, 123 A.D.2d 328, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 827; People v. Phillips, 120 A.D.2d 621).
Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). The defendant's flight upon being directed by the police to stop (cf., People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, 586, cert denied 449 U.S. 1023) together with the complainant's confirmatory identification of the defendant following the arrest and his identification of a gun recovered within the area of the arrest site as the one used in the robbery, demonstrate that the jury's verdict was supported by the weight of the evidence.
Furthermore, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in excluding certain portions of a purported prior inconsistent statement made by the complainant since defense counsel failed to lay a proper foundation for their admission by confronting the witness with the alleged discrepancies (see, People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80, cert denied 442 U.S. 910; People v. Jones, 136 A.D.2d 740, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 969; Richardson, Evidence § 501 et seq. [Prince 10th ed]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Rubin, JJ., concur.