Opinion
June 26, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress evidence because his initial stop was allegedly made upon mere suspicion, not probable cause and, therefore, there was no lawful predicate for his arrest. We disagree.
An officer may approach a private citizen for the purpose of requesting information as long as there is some "articulable reason" sufficient to justify the police action which was taken (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 213). In the instant case, the defendant's resemblance to the composite drawing of a robbery suspect constituted an "articulable reason" sufficient to warrant the police officers' request that the defendant produce identification. The fact that the defendant responded by pushing the car door into one of the officers and attempting to run while drawing a gun provided the officers with probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v. Rivera, 142 A.D.2d 742; People v Mandley, 134 A.D.2d 622).
We have examined the defendant's other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (People v Battles, 141 A.D.2d 748), without merit (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80), or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.