Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The statement of a coperpetrator implicating the defendant in the commission of the robbery, which was verified by information obtained from a person familiar with the facts of the crime, provided the police with probable cause for the defendant's arrest (see, People v Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417; People v Richardson, 133 A.D.2d 784, 785; People v Brown, 130 A.D.2d 585, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 709; People v White, 109 A.D.2d 859). Moreover, the warrantless arrest of the defendant in the driveway of his girlfriend's residence was not improper (see, People v Kozlowski, 69 N.Y.2d 761; People v Minley, 68 N.Y.2d 952).
We further note that the hearing court's findings that the defendant had been adequately advised of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and voluntarily chose to waive them, and that the defendant's statements had not been induced by fraud or coercion are supported by the record (see, People v Vallejos, 125 A.D.2d 352, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 834). We therefore conclude that the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress oral and written statements made to the police following his arrest.
Finally, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.