DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court credited the arresting officer's testimony that the police initially approached the defendant because of his resemblance to an individual portrayed in a police department "wanted" poster, and we find no basis to disturb that credibility determination ( see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761). The officer testified that a wanted poster is generated after an individual is identified as the perpetrator of a crime. Based on the defendant's resemblance to the individual in the wanted poster, the police had, at the very least, the right to approach him to request information ( see People v. Bethea, 239 A.D.2d 510; see also People v. Jacob, 202 A.D.2d 444).
The defendant's subsequent flight when the officers asked if they could speak to him provided reasonable suspicion to pursue and stop him ( see People v. Woods, 98 N.Y.2d 627; People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444, 447-448; People v. Sergeant, 281 A.D.2d 438, 439), and his abandonment of a weapon during the chase provided the police with probable cause to arrest him ( see People v. Wigfall, 295 A.D.2d 222, 223; People v. Cummings, 291 A.D.2d 454, 455; People v. Lipsey, 247 A.D.2d 246). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the drugs recovered upon a search of his pockets ( see People v. Cummings, supra; People v. Valentine, 220 A.D.2d 708, 709).
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.