Opinion
November 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rienzi, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, who fit the description of a reported robbery suspect, was observed at night by police in a "robbery prone" location behaving suspiciously. When the plainclothes police followed the defendant into a building, the defendant initially "lunged" toward them, simulating that he had a weapon in his pocket. As a result, the defendant was stopped and frisked and a knife was recovered from his pocket. While the defendant was being detained in the building, a man passed by and identified the defendant to the police as the man who had robbed him on a prior occasion. At that point the defendant was arrested.
We agree with the hearing court that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant when he was identified by a victim as the perpetrator of another crime (see, People v Morro, 165 A.D.2d 719, 720; People v Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20, 28). The hearing court's determinations as to credibility are afforded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the evidence (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v Almodovar, 168 A.D.2d 454).
Further, under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the People that the testimony regarding the defendant's possession of a knife, the passerby's identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of another crime, and the similarity in clothes worn by the defendant and a perpetrator of another prior robbery, was properly admitted as background information necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest (see, People v Castro, 101 A.D.2d 392, affd 65 N.Y.2d 683; People v Muriell, 128 A.D.2d 554), and was "inextricably interwoven" with the description of the arrest (see, People v Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 529; People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Miller and Joy, JJ., concur.