Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention the evidence adduced at the pretrial hearing clearly established that the police possessed the requisite probable cause to place him under arrest (see, People v Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366; People v Johnston, 133 A.D.2d 782).
We also find that the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which sought to suppress his inculpatory statements (see, People v Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29; People v King, 121 A.D.2d 471, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 758).
Furthermore, although the photographic identification may well have been tainted, suppression of the witness's in-court identification was not warranted since the record fully supports the hearing court's determination that the witness had an adequate independent recollection of the defendant upon which to base the in-court identification (see, People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600; People v Ortiz, 134 A.D.2d 624, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 900).
Finally, we note that while some of the prosecutor's comments regarding the defendant's alibi might have been better left unsaid, they did not deprive him of a fair trial (see, People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.