ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the People established probable cause to arrest the defendant (see People v Gayden, 28 NY3d 1035, 1037; People v Jackson, 249 AD2d 327, 327; People v Lowe, 237 AD2d 903, 904; People v Irizarry, 203 AD2d 11, affd 84 NY2d 854; People v Harrington, 193 AD2d 756; cf. People v Reyes, 83 NY2d 945, 946). Accordingly, the court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence recovered.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the People established probable cause to arrest the defendant (seePeople v. Gayden, 28 N.Y.3d 1035, 1037, 42 N.Y.S.3d 667, 65 N.E.3d 696 ; People v. Jackson, 249 A.D.2d 327, 327, 670 N.Y.S.2d 895 ; People v. Lowe, 237 A.D.2d 903, 904, 654 N.Y.S.2d 518 ; People v. Irizarry, 203 A.D.2d 11, 609 N.Y.S.2d 235, affd 84 N.Y.2d 854, 617 N.Y.S.2d 455, 641 N.E.2d 1073 ; People v. Harrington, 193 A.D.2d 756, 597 N.Y.S.2d 723 ; cf.People v. Reyes, 83 N.Y.2d 945, 946, 615 N.Y.S.2d 316, 638 N.E.2d 961 ). Accordingly, the court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence recovered.
The officers pursued him and took him into custody. Consequently, when the officers seized defendant, they had reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed a crime ( see People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734, 736–737, 506 N.Y.S.2d 320, 497 N.E.2d 687;De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d at 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562;People v. Lowe, 237 A.D.2d 903, 904, 654 N.Y.S.2d 518,lv. denied89 N.Y.2d 1096, 660 N.Y.S.2d 390, 682 N.E.2d 991). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for a new attorney without conducting a hearing.
Langowski arrested defendant and, during a search incident to that arrest, found property later identified as belonging to the owners of the burglarized homes. We find that, under these circumstances, defendant had no expectation of privacy in the abandoned vehicle ( see People v. Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 109-110; People v. Hanks, 275 AD2d 1008, lv denied 95 NY2d 964) and, therefore, Lacki was justified in conducting a limited search of the glove compartment for the vehicle registration ( see generally People v. Philbert, 270 AD2d 210, lv denied 95 NY2d 856). The discovery of the duffle bag, with the handgun and the money bag, was in plain view. Based on defendant's admission that he was the driver of the disabled vehicle containing the handgun viewed by the Trooper, there was probable cause to arrest him for criminal possession of a weapon ( see People v. Jalil, 283 AD2d 371, 372, lv denied 97 NY2d 641; People v. Lowe, 237 AD2d 903, 904, lv denied 89 NY2d 1096), and the subsequent search of his person and the impounded car were proper ( see People v. Tunstall, 278 AD2d 585, 587, lv denied 96 NY2d 788; People v. Nichols, 277 AD2d 715, 717-718; see generally People v. Ross, 228 AD2d 718, lv denied 88 NY2d 993). Although defendant's version of the events, including the condition of his car and the duffle bag, differed from that of the troopers, this presented a credibility question for the suppression court to resolve ( see People v. Earley, 244 AD2d 769, 770; People v. Villeneuve, 232 AD2d 892, 894). Furthermore, we find no extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion which would warrant a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice ( see People v. Jackson, 2 AD3d 893, 897, lv denied 1 NY3d 629; People v. Torra, 309 AD2d 1074, 1076, lv denied 1 NY3d 581).