The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police officers had a reasonable, objective basis for concluding that the object they saw in defendant's waistband was a pistol. The officers saw a bulge, which they described in detail. Although the officers did not see the outline of an entire weapon, the shape of the bulge resembled the outline of the grip of a pistol. In addition, defendant made repeated motions that the officers recognized, from their experience, as typical of attempts to adjust a firearm kept in a waistband. Accordingly, the police had reasonable suspicion justifying a stop and frisk ( see e.g. Matter of George G., 73 AD3d 624; People v Quan, 182 AD2d 506, lv denied 80 NY2d 836).
Defendant did not preserve his contention that the police officers, at most, should have initially conducted a patdown, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits ( see People v Smith, 93 AD2d 432, 434, lv denied 60 NY2d 594).