Opinion
July 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Koch, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Information received from a fellow officer, along with a tip from an unidentified person and observations at the scene, gave the arresting officers an articulable basis for inquiring of the defendant as to his activities ( see, People v. Salaman, 71 N.Y.2d 869; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 410; People v. Jackson, 158 A.D.2d 545; People v. Perry, 133 A.D.2d 380, affd 71 N.Y.2d 871). The defendant's attempt to flee upon the officers' approach gave rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed or was about to commit a crime and justified the officers' pursuit ( see, People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734; People v. Jackson, supra; People v. Miller, 146 A.D.2d 809). Once the defendant displayed a gun and pointed it in their direction the officers had probable cause to arrest him ( see, People v. Wider, 172 A.D.2d 573; People v. De Bour, supra; see also, CPL 140.10). Therefore, the subsequent recovery of the gun, which was discarded and abandoned by the defendant during his flight, was proper ( see, People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, cert denied 444 U.S. 969; People v. Jackson, supra). The search of the defendant, being incidental to the arrest, was likewise proper and the watches and currency found in his pocket were legally obtained ( see, People v. Leung, supra; People v. White, 117 A.D.2d 127).
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person who committed the robbery ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Hemphill, 187 A.D.2d 728). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.