Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and his post-arrest statements to law enforcement officials, as the evidence presented by the People demonstrated that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant ( see CPL 140.10 [b]; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423; People v Tin P Chu, 8 AD3d 399). Moreover, the defendant failed to establish that in making his statements to the police, his "will was overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired" ( People v White, 10 NY3d 286, 292, quoting People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 41). Additionally, contrary to the defendant's contentions, the photo array and lineup viewed by the complainants were not unduly suggestive, as the individuals viewed were sufficiently similar in appearance to the defendant ( see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336; People v Miller, 33 AD3d 728).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which did not directly involve the plea bargaining process ( see People v Silent, 37 AD3d 625).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.