DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the hearing court's determination that the initial police inquiry of the defendant was based on "a founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot" (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223). The defendant matched the description of a suspect in an attempted burglary which had occurred only minutes earlier several blocks away, and he was proceeding in the same direction as the suspect. Once the defendant fled while the police were checking his identification, the right of inquiry escalated to a reasonable suspicion to pursue (see, People v. Matienzo, 81 N.Y.2d 778; People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444). The police detention of the defendant, during which he was transported to the crime scene for identification by the complainant, fell short of the level of intrusion that constitutes an arrest (see, People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378; People v. Carney, 212 A.D.2d 721). Finally, the hearing court properly concluded that probable cause to arrest the defendant arose once the complainant identified him (see, People v. Evans, 237 A.D.2d 458). Accordingly, suppression was properly denied.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).