Ordered that the order is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the hearing court properly granted the defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop of his vehicle. Although police observation of a traffic infraction is a sufficient basis to justify a stop of the offending vehicle ( see, People v Ellis, 62 NY2d 393; People v Diaz, 232 AD2d 289; Matter of Marcellius H-R., 229 AD2d 578), it is equally well settled that the police may not use a traffic violation as a mere pretext to investigate a suspect on an unrelated matter ( see, People v Ynoa, 223 AD2d 975; People v David, 223 AD2d 551; People v James, 217 AD2d 969). Here, the record reveals that the police decided to follow the defendant's vehicle because they were aware that a vehicle of a similar make and model had been used to transport guns into New York State. Moreover, while the officers subsequently observed the defendant make a left turn without signaling, they did not stop his vehicle until six blocks after he committed this traffic infraction, and did not question him about the infraction or issue a traffic summons. In addition, the arresting officer admitted that his decision to stop the defendant "was dictated by the fact that [he] wanted to investigate * * * possible gun running". Under these circumstances, the hearing court did not err in concluding that the alleged Vehicle and Traffic Law violation was a pretext to stop the defendant's vehicle and investigate an unrelated matter ( see, People v Ynoa, supra; People v James, supra; People v Smith, 181 AD2d 802; People v Vasquez, 173 AD2d 580; cf., People v Coggins, 175 AD2d 924).
Rosenblatt, J.P., and Ritter, J., concur with the following memorandum: We concur in the result on constraint of People v Vasquez ( 173 AD2d 580).