Appellant's suppression motion was properly denied. The record supports the suppression court's determination that the police conduct here was proper. The police responded to a livery cab driver's request for assistance in resolving a dispute with appellant, a passenger in the cab. The police were performing a public service function of attempting to settle a dispute, and were not engaged in their criminal law enforcement capacity, when they approached the cab, asked appellant where he was going and requested that appellant get out so that they could talk to him (see People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 189). Even if we were to find that the officers were engaged in their criminal law enforcement capacity at the time they approached appellant, we would construe the encounter as analogous to a vehicle stop initiated by the cab driver, so that the officers' request that appellant get out of the cab constituted a minimal additional intrusion, particularly since the cab driver was already out of the cab and talking to the police (compare Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408; with People v. Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470). In any event, appellant was arrested as the result of his independent unlawful conduct in flailing his arms and yelling obscenities, all in the presence of a gathering crowd. This provided probable cause to arrest appellant for disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20,[2],[3],[7]; People v. Shapiro, 96 A.D.2d 626). Appellant appeared to be at least 16 years old and thus subject to arrest for a violation. Accordingly, the drugs recovered from appellant's person were properly seized as incident to a lawful arrest.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.