Opinion
April 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.).
Defendant contends that his motion to suppress physical evidence should have been granted because the description given to the police of a man with a gun was too general to serve as the predicate for a stop and frisk, and because defendant did not, in any event, fit the description. We find that the hearing court properly denied the motion. The police conduct was justified, based as it was upon information provided by an identified individual who approached them and gave a description that included defendant's age, height and outer clothing (People v Castro, 115 A.D.2d 433, 435, affd 68 N.Y.2d 850; People v Bruce, 78 A.D.2d 169), as well as the type of weapon he thought defendant was carrying. Defendant was found immediately thereafter in the area indicated by the informant, and was the only person in the vicinity who met the description. The fact that there was a slight discrepancy in his appearance, with respect to his facial hair, does not render the subsequent frisk unreasonable (People v Fernandez, 86 A.D.2d 416, affd 58 N.Y.2d 791). Based on the information provided by a known individual, and the fact that defendant substantially met the description, the stop and frisk was reasonable under the circumstances (People v Bruce, supra).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.