Opinion
April 28, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Donald J. Mark, J.).
Defendant's argument that the description transmitted by the undercover officer did not provide probable cause for his arrest because, among other things, the undercover officer did not transmit the fact that he had a substantial beard and a mustache, is without merit. To establish probable cause, the facts and circumstances known to a police officer are not required to be of the magnitude needed to warrant a conviction (People v Mercado, 117 A.D.2d 627, 629), and the description is sufficient when it is sufficiently specific and detailed to enable the police to reasonably conclude that the defendant was the person described (see, People v Carmona, 172 A.D.2d 151, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 963). In this case, the description given by the undercover officer focused on clothing, height and weight. The defendant, who matched the given description in every way, was also found in close proximity to the place where the alleged crime took place and within a very short period after transmission of the description from the undercover officer. These factors lend additional support to the police conduct (People v Carmona, supra). This is not a case where the transmission was "too general, vague and stale to render it more probable than not" that defendant was the one who perpetrated the crime (People v Simpson, 174 A.D.2d 348, 351, citing People v White, 117 A.D.2d 127, 131, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 818; People v Riddick, 110 A.D.2d 787). Nor were there any discrepancies between the description received by the arresting officer and the actual appearance of the suspect (see, e.g., People v Lane, 102 A.D.2d 829, appeal dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 865).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.