Opinion
February 22, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the physical evidence and identification testimony should have been suppressed on the ground that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle that he was operating. The vehicle matched the registration recovered from the defendant's accomplice in an armed robbery, who already had been apprehended and searched. Moreover, the vehicle was parked in the vicinity of the crime scene, and a police officer observed the defendant, who fit the description of one of the perpetrators, enter it and drive off shortly after the commission of the crime and the departure of the officers who had responded to the scene. These facts sufficed to establish a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in criminal activity ( see, People v. Bond, 227 A.D.2d 412, affd 90 N.Y.2d 877; People v. Flanagan, 224 A.D.2d 633; People v. Mills, 198 A.D.2d 236). Once the defendant refused to stop and engaged the police in a high-speed chase along icy roads, there was probable cause for his arrest ( see, People v. Bond, supra; People v. Boone, 183 A.D.2d 721).
The defendant's remaining contentions either have been waived ( see, People v. Cruz, 244 A.D.2d 564; People v. Shriay, 240 A.D.2d 783; People v. Hamilton, 205 A.D.2d 706) or have not been properly preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05 Crim. Proc. [2]; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v. Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947).
Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.