PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him and his companions pending a showup identification by the complainant based on a radio transmission, as well as the fact that the defendant was found near the crime scene shortly after the crime occurred (see People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Thomas, 294 A.D.2d 607, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 702; People v. Breazil, 269 A.D.2d 537).

However, pursuant to CPL 720.20(1), the sentencing court has a statutory obligation to determine, on the record, whether an eligible youth should be afforded youthful offender treatment when, as here, the issue was properly raised (see People v. Miles, 244 A.D.2d 433). The sentencing court failed to adequately place on the record its reasons for denying the defendant youthful offender status. Therefore, the defendant's sentence must be vacated and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing after determining if the defendant should be sentenced as a youthful offender. We express no opinion as to whether the Supreme Court should afford youthful offender status to the defendant.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and McGINITY, JJ., concur.