Opinion
January 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.).
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant's present argument that probable cause for his arrest was lacking because the identified citizen informant's basis of knowledge was not established is unpreserved ( People v. Brown, 232 A.D.2d 168, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 940), and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find, from the totality of circumstances, that the informant's basis of knowledge could be readily inferred ( see, People v. Parris, 83 N.Y.2d 342, 350; People v. Brown, 232 A.D.2d 168, supra).
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for a continuance to have the officer who spoke directly with the known informant produced for interview and possible use as a defense witness at the hearing. Defense counsel's request was based on mere speculation that the officer might provide material, non-cumulative evidence and therefore was properly rejected ( see, People v. Sanchez, 230 A.D.2d 634, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 1071; People v. Setteroth, 200 A.D.2d 533, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 876).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.