Opinion
December 8, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gallagher, J.).
Ordered that judgment is affirmed.
The arresting officer, the only witness at the Mapp hearing, testified that, on October 31, 1983, at about 10:50 P.M., he and his partner were on radio motor patrol in the vicinity of Liberty Avenue between 148th and 150th Streets in Queens County. They were flagged down by an identified citizen who informed them that his friend had been robbed across the street. The officers approached the alleged victim, Michael Williams, who told them that the defendant, standing next to him, had just robbed him of his jacket and some cash. The defendant's hand was in his right jacket pocket and, when the officer told him to remove it, an umbrella handle fell to the ground. The defendant was then placed under arrest.
We find that the hearing court properly declined to suppress the physical evidence. Probable cause to arrest a suspect may be based upon information provided to the police by an identified informant that a particular individual has committed a crime (see, People v. Murphy, 97 A.D.2d 873; People v. Sanders, 79 A.D.2d 688). In any event, the defendant was not arrested solely upon the initial information provided but only after the victim, who was clearly competent to identify the defendant as the perpetrator, had informed the police as to what had transpired (see, People v. Brown, 117 A.D.2d 741, 742; People v. Joyner, 109 A.D.2d 753).
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that the verdict was rationally based upon proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of every element of the crime charged (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). The various inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses merely posed questions of credibility which were for the trier of the fact to resolve (see, People v. Herriot, 110 A.D.2d 851; People v. Bigelow, 106 A.D.2d 448). A reasonable doubt did not arise solely because these witnesses had criminal records (see, People v. Peterson, 112 A.D.2d 172; People v. Sutton, 108 A.D.2d 942).
We find that the defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Niehoff, J.P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.