Appellant's suppression motion was properly denied. The police received detailed information about a gang-related shooting that was expected to occur imminently at a specified location. This information was substantially corroborated by the officers' observations at the location where the gang was reportedly assembling. These observations included the presence of a large group of youths, along with a specific vehicle described in the radio transmission. When a police helicopter shined a spotlight on the group of youths, appellant immediately began to walk away, repeatedly adjusting something in his waistband. The totality of circumstances including the waistband adjustment, commonly known to be a sign of the presence of a weapon, provided reasonable suspicion for the ensuing pat-down ( see, People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267; People v. Giles, 223 A.D.2d 39, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 864).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.