Opinion
February 16, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying suppression of the complainant's identification testimony and of the razor recovered from the vehicle he was operating as fruits of an unlawful stop and search. The hearing record demonstrates that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle on the basis of a radio bulletin (see, Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v Wade, 143 A.D.2d 703; People v Adams, 123 A.D.2d 769). Moreover, the actions of the police officers in drawing their guns after approaching the vehicle and ordering the defendant and his companion out of the vehicle were justified under the circumstances as appropriate measures to insure their safety (see, People v Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366; People v Finlayson, 76 A.D.2d 670, cert denied 450 U.S. 931). Similarly, their brief detention of the defendant and his companion pending the arrival of the complainant for identification purposes was proper (see, People v Hicks, supra). Likewise, the complainant's on-the-scene identification was lawful, inasmuch as it was made in close temporal and physical proximity to the robbery and the circumstances were not unduly suggestive (see, People v Hicks, supra; People v Palmer, 140 A.D.2d 720; People v Alleyne, 136 A.D.2d 552). Hence, the People were not required to demonstrate an independent source for the complainant's in-court identification testimony (see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v Hucks, 175 A.D.2d 213). Additionally, the search of the vehicle was lawful and the razor found therein constituted admissible evidence (see, People v Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673; People v Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.