Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly found that the defendant's statement and lineup identification were not suppressible as the fruits of an illegal arrest (see, Payton v New York, 445 U.S. 573). The evidence presented to the hearing court clearly demonstrated that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, CPL 140.10 [b]). Under the Aguilar-Spinelli rule (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 U.S. 108; Spinelli v United States, 393 U.S. 410), where probable cause is predicated in whole or part upon the hearsay statement of an informant, it must be demonstrated that the information is reliable and the informant had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge (see, People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398). A citizen's reliability is assumed because of the potential penalty which may be imposed if the information provided to the police is fabricated (see, People v McCain, 134 A.D.2d 623; People v Phillips, 120 A.D.2d 621). In this case, the arresting officers were provided with detailed factual information which would lead a reasonable person possessing the officers' expertise to determine that the defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes being investigated (see, People v DiFalco, 80 N.Y.2d 693, 698; People v Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 489).
Further, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing supports the hearing court's conclusion that the warrantless entry into the apartment of the defendant's mother was effected with the consent of the defendant's mother (see, People v Minley, 68 N.Y.2d 952; People v Green, 212 A.D.2d 630; People v Daly, 180 A.D.2d 872, 874; People v Levine, 174 A.D.2d 757). Moreover, since the defendant's arrest was effected outside of his apartment, no Payton issue is presented (see, United States v Santana, 427 U.S. 38; United States v Watson, 423 U.S. 411; People v Anderson, 146 A.D.2d 638).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.