Opinion
June 13, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we discern no basis for disturbing the hearing court's express determination that the stop and frisk in this case was validly supported by reasonable suspicion. In this regard, the defendant's analysis of the stop pursuant to the more stringent probable cause standard for an arrest is erroneous (see, People v. Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369; People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267; People v. Olsen, 93 A.D.2d 824; cf., People v. Parris, 83 N.Y.2d 342; People v. Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231). The evidence adduced at the hearing, including the radio report of an armed robbery in progress at a specified location, the descriptions provided by citizen informants to other police officers during a face-to-face encounter at the scene, and the independent corroborative observations made by the arresting officer in close temporal and geographical proximity to the scene, provided the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the stop of the defendant (see, People v. Salaman, 71 N.Y.2d 869; People v. Landy, supra; People v. Klass, 55 N.Y.2d 821; People v Benjamin, supra; People v. Mills, 198 A.D.2d 236). Moreover, the protective pat down of the defendant was appropriate, given the nature of the reported crime and the officer's reasonable belief that the defendant might be armed (see, People v. Salaman, supra; People v. Benjamin, supra). Upon recovering a gun from the defendant's person, the police had probable cause to arrest him (see, People v. Sattan, 200 A.D.2d 640; People v. Thorne, 184 A.D.2d 797). Accordingly, the defendant's contention that the police conduct in this case was unlawful is without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.