The totality of the circumstances provided a proper basis for the forcible stop and detention of defendant ( People v. Polanco, 174 A.D.2d 468, 469). A police officer saw an unidentified citizen chasing after defendant and was told by the pursuer that the man had just perpetrated a robbery ( People v. Fernandez, 182 A.D.2d 431, 432, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1049). Defendant's continued flight from other officers, who had been alerted by the first officer and who were pursuing defendant in a van, and their observation that defendant had discarded his outer shirt along the way, clearly provided police with reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime ( see, People v. Polanco, supra).
Upon cornering defendant in a parking garage, the officers were entitled to conduct a protective pat down, since the radio call had stated an armed robbery had been committed ( see, People v Liner, 133 A.D.2d 555, appeal dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 945), and to handcuff defendant to protect their own safety ( People v Foster, 85 N.Y.2d 1012). Finally, upon receiving word within minutes that the victims of a robbery had been located in a nearby hotel, the officers were entitled to transport the handcuffed suspect to conduct a showup identification ( see, supra).
We have considered defendant's contention that the prompt, on-the-scene showup identification was unduly suggestive and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.