Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. The record supports the hearing court's finding that the officer conducted a common-law inquiry, including a request to view the contents of the plastic bag defendant was holding ( see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181; People v. Moore, 47 N.Y.2d 911, revg on dissenting opn 62 A.D.2d 155, 157-160). We see no reason to disturb the court's interpretation of the officer's testimony concerning the phrasing of his communication with defendant leading to the opening of the bag. Since it is undisputed that the officer had a founded suspicion warranting a common-law inquiry, there was no basis for suppression.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ.