Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress the revolver recovered by the police during the search of the defendant's "knap-sac" is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v Manuli, 156 A.D.2d 388). In any event, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the gun since it was discovered during a lawful search of the defendant conducted with reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed (see, People v Brooks, 65 N.Y.2d 1021; People v Johnson, 59 N.Y.2d 1014; People v Moore, 32 N.Y.2d 67; People v Cartagena, 189 A.D.2d 67; People v White, 156 A.D.2d 741; People v Tratch, 104 A.D.2d 503; People v Belk, 100 A.D.2d 908; CPL 140.50).

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he had knowing possession of the gun has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). 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 (see, People v Reisman, 29 N.Y.2d 278; People v Arroyo, 188 A.D.2d 655; People v Mato, 160 A.D.2d 435). 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 (CPL 470.15). Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.