Opinion
July 18, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Pirro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied suppression of the "pouch" that the defendant had dropped in the "lobby" of the boarding house while he was walking away from detectives, and the vials recovered therefrom. The specificity of the information provided by the anonymous tip and the congruity between that information and the circumstances actually encountered provided the detectives with the requisite "reasonable suspicion" for them to approach the defendant to inquire (see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181; People v Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Bora, 191 A.D.2d 384, affd 83 N.Y.2d 531; People v. Batash, 163 A.D.2d 399; see also, People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444; People v Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734; cf., People v. May, 81 N.Y.2d 725). Moreover, the seizure of the pouch containing the vials of cocaine was proper, inasmuch as the defendant's dropping of the pouch amounted to a calculated strategy by the defendant to rid himself of the incriminating evidence, and constituted abandonment thereof (see, People v. Martinez, supra; People v. Leung, supra; People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, cert denied 444 U.S. 969; see also, People v. Yizar, 196 A.D.2d 517; People v. Merriman, 194 A.D.2d 745; People v. Archibald, 192 A.D.2d 537, 538). Also, once the pouch was recovered and the vials found therein, the officers had the requisite probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v. Martinez, supra; People v. Leung, supra; People v. Bora, supra; People v. Yizar, supra, at 517).
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the court's instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt in effect shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467, 472; People v. Gordon, 204 A.D.2d 566) and, in any event, this contention is without merit (see, People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247; see also, People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847; People v. Jones, 27 N.Y.2d 222, 227). Similarly without merit are the defendant's contentions with respect to the court's Allen charge (see, People v. Ford, 78 N.Y.2d 878; People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725; People v. Bastien, 180 A.D.2d 691, 692; People v. Fleury, 177 A.D.2d 504; see also, People v Antommarchi, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.