Opinion
January 23, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The arresting officer testified that he observed the defendant leaning against a telephone pole in a high-crime area and that the defendant, who was wearing a tee shirt underneath an open fur coat, had a large bulge at his waistline. When the defendant pulled the tee shirt down, apparently in response to the officer's approach, the outline of what appeared to be a weapon was revealed, thus justifying the ensuing patdown of the bulge and retrieval of what proved to be a .45 caliber, semiautomatic pistol (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; cf., CPL 140.50, [3]). We discern no basis for disturbing the suppression court's finding that the officer's testimony was credible (see, People v Africk, 107 A.D.2d 700; cf., People v Prochilo, supra). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.