Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that certain statements given by him to the police should have been suppressed because they were the product of an illegal arrest. However, the defendant was arrested after the complainant identified him in a photographic array as one of the robbers. Thus, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v. Gonzalez, 138 A.D.2d 622; People v. Anderson, 146 A.D.2d 638). Unlike a paid or anonymous informant, an eyewitness-victim of a crime can provide probable cause for the arrest of his or her assailant even though his reliability has not been established previously or his information corroborated (see, People v. Gonzalez, supra).
The hearing court also properly refused to suppress the identification testimony of the complainant, who testified at the trial. The defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the pretrial photographic array shown to the victim was unduly suggestive. Therefore, it was not necessary for the People to show that an independent source existed for the complainant's in-court identification (see, People v. Johnson, 170 A.D.2d 535; People v. Jackson, 108 A.D.2d 757).
Finally, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's summation (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.