Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the robbery victim's unequivocal identification of the defendant during a canvass of the area where the crime occurred gave the police probable cause to place the defendant under arrest ( see, People v Hunter, 220 AD2d 616; People v Newton, 180 AD2d 764; People v Grams, 166 AD2d 717; People v Griffin, 161 AD2d 799, 800). We find no merit to the defendant's argument that the identification was the result of unduly suggestive police procedure ( see, People v Dixon, 225 AD2d 791). Moreover, the victim's wallet, which was protruding from the defendant's jacket pocket, was properly seized as part of a search incident to the arrest ( see, People v Grams, supra; People v Cunningham, 135 AD2d 725).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.