Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress his statement to the police, tangible evidence seized by the police at the time of his arrest and the complainants' identification testimony. The police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant, who matched the detailed descriptions provided by witnesses and was observed in temporal and geographical proximity to the burglaries ( see, People v. Private , 259 A.D.2d 504; People v. Erazo , 256 A.D.2d 16, 17, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 1048 ). The fact that the police were apprehending defendant at gunpoint when one of the complainants spontaneously identified him does not render that identification unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Erazo, supra, at 17; People v. Miles , 203 A.D.2d 620, 621, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 909, 85 N.Y.2d 912 ). Once that complainant identified defendant, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant (s ee, People v. Muldrow , 222 A.D.2d 1076, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 882 ).
The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.