Opinion
December 27, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the initial stop of the vehicle was an illegal seizure. The police had reasonable suspicion to stop the car (see, CPL 140.50; People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223) based on (1) suspicious behavior, i.e., the occupants of the vehicle stopping and looking at each house on the block at approximately 6:45 A.M., and (2) a series of radio transmissions which indicated that a car matching the description of the stopped vehicle was involved in robberies and burglaries in the same neighborhood at a corresponding hour of the morning (see, People v Reid, 135 A.D.2d 753; People v Rivera, 124 A.D.2d 682; People v Pitt, 110 A.D.2d 723, cert denied 474 U.S. 922).
Furthermore, the defendant's contention that the People failed to establish a chain of custody for the car and its contents following the initial stop is without merit. It is well settled that when real evidence is offered as the actual object associated with a crime, the offering party must establish that the evidence is identical to that involved in the crime, and that it is unchanged (see, People v Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343-344; People v Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835). However, the gaps in the chain of custody or the People's failure to call the officer who drove the car to the station house would go to the weight to be accorded to the evidence, not to the admission of the evidence (see, People v Cummings, 184 A.D.2d 574; People v Ramos, 147 A.D.2d 718; People v Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.