Opinion
December 4, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court did not err in denying suppression of the physical evidence. The arresting officer was justified in stopping the vehicle since it fit the description, except for the color, of the vehicle used in the robbery (see, People v Buckley, 147 A.D.2d 898, lv granted 73 N.Y.2d 1012). Moreover, prior to stopping the vehicle, the officer determined that the passenger fit the description of the perpetrator of the crime. Thus, the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the car and one of its occupants had been involved in a crime (see, People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; People v Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106). Thereafter the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant when he saw the butt of a gun lying in plain view in the car (see, People v Perez, 135 A.D.2d 582).
The defendant's contention that the lineup was unduly suggestive because he was the only participant wearing a leather jacket which fit the description of the clothing worn by the perpetrator, is unpersuasive. The record discloses that all the lineup participants had similar physical characteristics and wore jackets (cf., People v Owens, 74 N.Y.2d 677).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.