Opinion
June 11, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, Elbert Hinkson, J., Joseph Cerbone, J.
Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. The sound of the gunshots and the crowd's movement toward the fleeing codefendant provided the transmitting officer with reasonable suspicion to pursue the codefendant ( People v. Blackwell, 206 A.D.2d 300, appeal dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 851; People v. Sloan, 178 A.D.2d 624, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 953). Thereafter, the apprehending officer was entitled to rely on the information provided by his fellow officer transmitted over the radio ( People v. Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366, 373, n 4). Once the apprehending officer saw defendant and codefendant running together seconds later, and then observed defendant stop upon seeing the officer and drop an object to the ground, he was entitled to detain both men for the purposes of determining their involvement in the shooting ( compare, People v Burgos, 175 A.D.2d 211, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1010, with People v Otty, 223 A.D.2d 364). In any event, the recovery of the gun was lawful since defendant dropped the object prior to any action taken by the police, and therefore abandoned the property as the result of a calculated act ( People v. Rivera, 183 A.D.2d 674, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 933, citing People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, cert denied 444 U.S. 969).
Defendant's additional claim that the court failed to inquire of two jurors who may have fallen asleep during the trial is unpreserved for appellate review since defendant failed to request an inquiry or other relief ( see, People v. Williams, 187 A.D.2d 398, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 849), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, we note that the court did take steps to address the situation.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.