Opinion
October 3, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's mere allegation that his arrest was not based on probable cause was insufficient to challenge the reliability of the information transmitted to the arresting officer (see, People v Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210; People v Muriell, 128 A.D.2d 554, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 652; People v Ward, 95 A.D.2d 233). As a result of the defendant's failure to offer any challenge to the reliability of the transmitted information, the People were not required to produce the "sending" officer at the suppression hearing. Moreover, any challenge to the People's failure to do so has not been preserved for review (see, People v Ward, supra). We find the information furnished constituted probable cause and that the receiving officer's actions were cloaked with a presumption that they were based upon such probable cause (see, People v Lypka, supra).
Following his arrest on a public street, the defendant was provided with Miranda warnings before being questioned by the police. The record supports the County Court's determination that the defendant voluntarily spoke to the officers after knowingly and intelligently waiving his constitutional rights (People v Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285).
We find the arguments raised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief to be without merit. By pleading guilty, the defendant waived the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury (CPL 210.30; People v Dunbar, 53 N.Y.2d 868; People v Thomas, 53 N.Y.2d 338; People v Gagliano, 133 A.D.2d 704, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 931). The defendant has further failed to preserve a challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution since he neither moved to withdraw the plea under CPL 220.60 (3) nor moved to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 (People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; see also, People v Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Pascale, 48 N.Y.2d 997). "The failure to make the appropriate motion denie[d] the trial court the opportunity to address the perceived error and to take corrective measures, if needed" (People v Lopez, supra, at 665-666).
Finally, we find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.