Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The police had probable cause to arrest defendant; however, it is also clear that in doing so a Payton violation occurred (see, Payton v New York, 445 U.S. 573). Nonetheless, the defendant's contention that his subsequent inculpatory statements and lineup identifications must be suppressed is without merit.
Prior to making his inculpatory statements, the defendant was informed that his partner in the charged robberies implicated him and that a number of his victims had identified him in a photographic array. Under these circumstances, we are persuaded that there was sufficient attenuation between the illegal arrest and the inculpatary statements, and that those statements were not the product of the illegal arrest (see, Rawlings v Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 107-110; Brown v Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-604; People v Harris, 77 N.Y.2d 434, 439; People v Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982, 983; People v Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 407; People v Leandry, 130 A.D.2d 351, 352; People v Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606; see also, People v Allah, 140 A.D.2d 613, cert denied 490 U.S. 1026; People v Jones, 130 A.D.2d 511; People v Calcaterra, 127 A.D.2d 778). Similarly, the lineup identifications were sufficiently attenuated.
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.