Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's present contention, we find that the hearing court properly concluded that his warrantless arrest in the subject dwelling was permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the rule announced in Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573). The record reveals that the defendant committed the extremely serious and violent offenses of murder and robbery, and it was reasonable for the police to assume that he was still armed, as no weapon was recovered from the crime scene. Moreover, the information which the police received from the mother of the defendant's girlfriend provided a reliable basis for their belief that the defendant was present at the premises in issue, and there was some evidence that the defendant might have been aware of his brother's recent arrest for the same offenses and may have been attempting to flee. Finally, the identification of the defendant as a participant in the offenses by his two accomplices and a witness provided ample probable cause for his arrest (see, People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417; People v. White, 109 A.D.2d 859). Based upon our consideration of these factors, we conclude that exigent circumstances justified the defendant's prompt and warrantless arrest (see, People v Solimine, 128 A.D.2d 565; People v. Pabon, 120 A.D.2d 685, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1003; People v. Gordon, 110 A.D.2d 778; People v Green, 103 A.D.2d 362; see generally, People v. Mealer, 57 N.Y.2d 214, cert denied 460 U.S. 1024). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.