Opinion
October 19, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that the police did not have a sufficient basis for his detention and subsequent arrest. The information originally possessed by the arresting officer, together with the reaction of the defendant when the police requested that he stop, justified the frisk and brief detention of the defendant until the complainant could arrive and either confirm or dispel the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the robbery (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 111; People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 222; People v Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181). The hearing court thus properly concluded that the police acted lawfully under the circumstances.
We also disagree with defendant's contention that the conduct of the trial court requires reversal. Since the defendant failed to object to allegedly prejudicial conduct or to move for a mistrial, his claim that the trial court improperly interjected itself into the proceedings is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886; People v Robinson, 137 A.D.2d 564; CPL 470.05). In any event, the record indicates that the trial court acted properly and within the bounds of its power to keep the proceedings within the reasonable confines of the issues and to encourage clarity rather than obscurity in the development of proof (see, People v Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 945).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive, and find them to be without merit (see, People v Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 667; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; People v Aguilera, 156 A.D.2d 698). Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.