denied95 N.Y.2d 805, 711 N.Y.S.2d 173, 733 N.E.2d 245 [2000] ). Similarly, the officers' brief inquiries of all occupants, including defendant, about the bags in the rear of the taxicab were “neither accusatory nor intimidating” and “did not take the [initial] encounter beyond a request for information” ( People v. Wellington, 265 A.D.2d 213, 214, 698 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1999],lv. denied94 N.Y.2d 886, 705 N.Y.S.2d 19, 726 N.E.2d 496 [2000];see People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d at 184–185, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204;People v. Savage, 59 A.D.3d at 819, 873 N.Y.S.2d 770;People v. Ramirez–Portoreal, 230 A.D.2d 943, 944, 646 N.Y.S.2d 217 [1996],lv.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The veteran detective, who had extensive training in narcotics interdiction (see,People v. Valentine, 17 N.Y.2d 128, 132), had an objective credible reason to approach and request information from defendant at the Port Authority Bus Terminal after defendant arrived at the last minute for a bus that was destined for a city known to be a destination for drug deliveries, carrying a plastic bag through which the outline of a shoebox was visible (see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 193; People v. Wellington, 265 A.D.2d 213, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 886; People v. Gabriel, 264 A.D.2d 641, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 823; cf., People v. Fields, 257 A.D.2d 387). The detective testified that drug couriers often board buses at the last minute in order to minimize contact with the police and often use shoeboxes to carry drugs. We note that the record fails to support defendant's claim that defendant's late arrival for a bus was the only basis for this Level I inquiry cited by the detective in his testimony or by the court in its findings.
Thus, under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the People have demonstrated that the defendant intended to abandon the gun. See generally People v. Anderson, 268 A.D.2d 228 (1st Dept.2000) ; People v. Wellington, 265 A.D.2d 213 (1st Dept.1999) ; People v. Gabriel, 264 A.D.2d 641 (1st Dept.1999) ; People v. Murray, 256 A.D.2d 116 (1st Dept.1998). Moreover, as explained earlier, Meyreles's pursuit of the defendant had ended before Meyreles encountered him in the elevator whilst performing routine patrol duties, and, thus, when the defendant abandoned the gun, it was not in direct response to Meyreles's unlawful pursuit.