ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly found that the police lawfully stopped the livery cab in which he and his codefendant were passengers. The record reveals that the police officers who stopped the cab at approximately 1:30 A.M. were responding to a report that two men had just committed an armed robbery at a nearby convenience store. The livery cab matched the description of the vehicle in which the robbers had fled, and the arresting officer observed the rear seat passenger engage in furtive conduct. Under these circumstances, the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that the two passengers in the livery cab had been engaged in a crime, thus justifying the stop (see, People v. Sobotker, 43 N.Y.2d 559, 563; People v. Bhoje, 275 A.D.2d 419; People v. Ryan, 224 A.D.2d 644). Furthermore, the use of a showup identification procedure was permissible in view of the close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Herrell, 278 A.D.2d 339).
Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). In any event, the defendant's negotiated sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.