Opinion
July 2, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant initially contends that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. We disagree. The statement made by the codefendant Eric Cherry implicating the defendant in the robbery of a supermarket which occurred on February 22, 1983, provided ample probable cause for his arrest (see, People v Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417; People v. Bostick, 151 A.D.2d 768).
We also find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that his statement to the police regarding the supermarket robbery was rendered involuntary because it was elicited in the absence of his guardian. The record demonstrates that the police contacted an adult when the defendant asked them to do so, and there is no indication in the record that the police held the defendant beyond the reach of the adult whose presence he had requested (see, People v. Pica, 159 A.D.2d 524; cf., People v. Bevilacqua, 45 N.Y.2d 508; People v. Rivera, 78 A.D.2d 556).
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the lineup in which he appeared was impermissibly suggestive and thus gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Even if it had been suggestive, however, suppression of the complaining witness's in-court identification of the defendant would not have been required. Based upon the duration of time that the witness observed the defendant during the robbery of the supermarket and the good lighting conditions at that time, we conclude that there is ample evidence in the hearing record to support the court's determination that an independent source for the in-court identification existed (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v. Dixon, 158 A.D.2d 467). Therefore, the hearing court properly denied suppression.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.