The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Since defendant's arguments at the suppression hearing were completely different from those raised on appeal, his current arguments are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the police had reasonable suspicion upon which to stop defendant, since he matched a sufficiently detailed description provided by the undercover officer, was observed fleeing the sale location minutes after the sale, and was stopped a few blocks from the location ( see People v. Rampersant, 272 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 870). Upon stopping defendant, the police were entitled to detain him briefly for investigative purposes ( see People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234), and were justified in handcuffing defendant, particularly since he had previously attempted to flee ( see People v. Jennings, 281 A.D.2d 285, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 903) . The undercover officer's confirmatory identification provided probable cause for defendant's arrest.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.