Opinion
October 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Zweibel, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression of evidence of the stolen vehicle. The arresting officer testified that he observed the defendant driving his vehicle recklessly at an excessive rate of speed (see, People v Erwin, 42 N.Y.2d 1064; People v Foster, 173 A.D.2d 841, 843). When the defendant stopped at a red light, the officer noticed that the vehicle's right rear window was broken. The officer activated his lights, motioning for the defendant to pull over, but the defendant proceeded through the red light, made an illegal U-turn, alighted from the vehicle, and entered a building. After a brief chase, the defendant was apprehended and detained while the officer returned to his car and ascertained via radio that the vehicle driven by the defendant had been reported stolen. The defendant was then arrested. Under these circumstances, the officer was justified in stopping the defendant's vehicle and then arresting him (see, People v Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734; People v Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 112; People v Wider, 172 A.D.2d 573).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Lawrence, JJ., concur.