The officer felt what he believed was a handgun while frisking defendant's waist-band area and seized a handgun. At the time he escorted defendant from the salon, the officer possessed a reasonable suspicion that defendant had engaged in criminal activity ( see, People v Evans, 210 AD2d 501, lv denied 88 NY2d 847; People v Cook, 179 AD2d 572, lv denied 79 NY2d 1047; People v Lugo, 66 AD2d 786) and, based upon the nature of the crimes and information that the suspect was armed, was justified in conducting a patdown frisk ( see, People v Mack, 26 NY2d 311, 317, cert denied 400 US 960; People v Perez, 166 AD2d 166, 167, lv denied 76 NY2d 989). We conclude that defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. The radioed descriptions of the two perpetrators were sufficiently detailed and specific, and the temporal and spatial proximity of defendant and his companion to the time and place of the reported robbery were sufficiently close, to justify a reasonable belief that defendant and his companion were the persons described ( People v White, 183 A.D.2d 671, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 911; People v Cook, 179 A.D.2d 572). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.). There was reasonable suspicion to frisk defendant and detain him pending identification by the victims (People v. Cook, 179 A.D.2d 572, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1047). Within minutes of the crime, the officers received several transmissions describing defendant and his accomplice and their flight from the crime scene in a specific taxicab, and indicating that one was armed with a meat cleaver and the other carried a knife. The cab driver led the officers to the building where he had discharged defendant and the accomplice, and defendant, who matched the description provided, was stopped in the lobby of the building.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.). The officers had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain defendants for a showup identification by the complainant (see, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234), where defendants matched the description of two armed robbery suspects, and were found sitting in a car similar to the one in which the suspects reportedly had fled within three blocks of the crime scene and only minutes after the event (see, People v. Cook, 179 A.D.2d 572). A discrepancy in the police testimony over whether the complainant's identification of defendants was spontaneous or prompted by an officer's question whether "these [are] the two guys that robbed you" did not require that the complainant be produced at the suppression hearing, since, even if we were to resolve the discrepancy in defendants' favor, we would find that the showup was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Lawhorn, 199 A.D.2d 123, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 855). We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for review as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant and the reading glasses were recovered as part of a search incident to that lawful arrest. See People v. Cook, 179 A.D.2d 572 (1 Dept. 1992). SANDOVAL RULING