Opinion
May 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Savarese, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
After receiving a radio call reporting a burglary in progress and giving a description of the perpetrator, the arresting police officer properly stopped the defendant, whose physical appearance was consistent with the description received and who was spotted in close proximity to the scene of the crime (see, People v Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267; People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v Cortijo, 141 A.D.2d 830). Moreover, once the officer observed a bulge in the defendant's breast pocket, the officer was justified in conducting a limited pat-down search to ascertain whether the defendant was armed with a weapon (see, People v Spivey, 46 N.Y.2d 1014; People v Alford, 146 A.D.2d 635; People v Cunningham, 71 A.D.2d 559, affd 52 N.Y.2d 927), and was further justified in removing what felt like a sharp object from the defendant's pocket (see, People v Taylor, 123 A.D.2d 651).
Furthermore, detaining the defendant by transporting him to the scene of the crime for the purpose of confirming or dispelling the police officers' reasonable suspicion was lawful. The police officers knew that there had been an attempt to commit a burglary. Additionally, the period of detention of the defendant was less than 10 minutes, the scene of the crime was two blocks away from where the defendant had been apprehended, the only eyewitness was at the scene of the crime, and there was no less intrusive means available to accomplish the same purpose (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 243).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to consider them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445; People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105). Brown, J.P., Sullivan, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.