Opinion
March 25, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
As the police had probable cause to arrest defendant ( People v Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369; People v. Laskaris, 82 A.D.2d 34), the denial of that branch of his pretrial motion which sought suppression of the money and jewelry recovered from him at the time of his arrest was proper.
The record supports the denial of that branch of his motion which sought suppression of his confession, as it was made after his valid arrest and after he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. The record is devoid of any indication of coercive behavior on the part of the police or the District Attorney ( cf. People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35).
Similarly, there is no support for defendant's contention that the lineup in which one of the robbery victims identified him as a participant was suggestive ( People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738; People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020).
As defendant's own confession was substantially identical with the extrajudicial statements of his nontestifying codefendants, defendant was not prejudiced by the denial of his motion to sever ( see, Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62; People v. McNeil, 24 N.Y.2d 550, cert denied sub nom. Spain v. New York, 396 U.S. 937; People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417; People v. Campos, 108 A.D.2d 751).
When the evidence is viewed in a light more favorable to the People, as it must be, defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt ( Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.