Opinion
November 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.).
Defendant's suppression motions were properly denied. The court properly found that police observation of defendant running from the scene of gunshots while looking over his shoulder, combined with defendant's furtive behavior at the approach of the police, provided reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in criminal activity, thereby justifying a forcible stop for investigative purposes ( People v. Salva, 228 A.D.2d 344, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 867; People v. Blackwell, 206 A.D.2d 300, appeal dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 851). When the officer who made these observations radioed a description of defendant that was sufficiently specific under the circumstances, and other officers observed defendant, who matched the description, who was running in close temporal and spatial proximity to the first incident, who was the only person on the street, and who disregarded a direction to stop, the police were justified in conducting a protective patdown and in handcuffing defendant pending a prompt show-up procedure ( see, People v. Smith, 228 A.D.2d 173, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 1071; People v. Watkins, 226 A.D.2d 173, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 996). Once defendant was identified as a perpetrator by an eyewitness to the crime, there was probable cause for defendant's arrest.
The court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion for severance of charges properly joinable under CPL 200.20 (2) (c) and (d), because neither the facts nor defendant's arguments presented the good cause showing required (CPL 200.20; People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 10). Further, the court properly instructed the jury regarding consideration of evidence in connection with the two separate incidents, and it is presumed that the jury understood and followed those instructions ( see, People v. Moore, 71 N.Y.2d 684, 688).
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.