Opinion
October 4, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).
Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained after he was stopped by the officer was properly denied. An off-duty officer witnessed the crime and identified the defendant, who was still in close proximity to the scene of the act. Probable cause existed since the identified off-duty officer, who gave the arresting officer the details of the crime and identified defendant, was an eyewitness to the attempted burglary, and thus had the requisite reliable basis of knowledge (see, People v Hetrick, 80 N.Y.2d 344, 348; People v. Lopez, 160 A.D.2d 167, 168).
Defendant's remaining challenges are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claims, we would find them to be meritless.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.