The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record ( see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Police officers responded to an anonymous report that there was an undescribed man with a gun a block away from their location. Almost immediately, they observed defendant, who was running toward them from the described location, looking over his shoulder, and carrying a clear bag that contained what appeared to be possible narcotics packaging material. At this point, the police had ample basis for a level two common-law inquiry ( see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223). When an officer tried to block defendant's path and get him to stop, this did not transform the inquiry into a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion ( see People v Rodriguez, 49 AD3d 431, lv denied 10 NY3d 964; People v Cherry, 30 AD3d 185, 185-186, lv denied 7 NY3d 811; People v Grunwald, 29 AD3d 33, 38-39, lv denied 6 NY3d 848). Defendant refused to stop, continued running, threw the bag over the officer's head and crashed into him, resulting in a struggle. At this point, the totality of the chain of events provided reasonable suspicion of criminality, warranting a frisk that revealed a firearm. It is of no moment that defendant's flight was toward the officer, in an effort to get past him, especially since defendant was also discarding the bag; defendant was clearly attempting to evade the officer and distance himself from possible contraband ( see People v Wigfall, 295 AD2d 222, lv denied 99 NY2d 540; see also People v Wells, 14 AD3d 320, affd 7 NY3d 51). In addition, the bag, which was later found to contain cocaine, was legally seized after defendant abandoned it ( see People v Reyes, 83 NY2d 945). Accordingly, there is no basis for suppression of the weapon, the drugs, or defendant's postarrest statements.