Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the term of imprisonment for robbery in the first degree from 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment to 8 1/3 to 25 years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The descriptions given to the police officers involved in the defendant's detention and subsequent arrest, coupled with his special and temporal proximity to the crime, his appearance, which matched the descriptions, and his conduct upon being approached by the police constitute sufficient facts to justify the police conduct (see, People v Alford, 198 A.D.2d 364; People v Johnson, 174 A.D.2d 694; People v Cumberbatch, 171 A.D.2d 671).
The defendant's contention that the trial court unduly interfered with the questioning of witnesses at trial and thereby deprived him of a fair trial is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44). In any event, on this record it does not appear that the court's conduct prevented the jury from arriving at an impartial verdict on the merits (see, People v Vale, 198 A.D.2d 246).
The sentence imposed for the defendant's conviction of robbery in the first degree is illegal and, therefore, must be modified to the extent indicated (see, Penal Law § 160.15; § 70.02 [4]; CPL 1.20; People v Vega, 198 A.D.2d 461).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Hart, JJ., concur.