The stop of the cab in which defendant was a passenger was justified by the police officer's observation of the cab approaching with its headlights off but parking lights on, which, in combination with his observation of defendant quickly ducking down in the back seat, was reasonably considered to be a distress signal (see, People v Davis, 130 A.D.2d 268, 269, appeal dismissed 72 N.Y.2d 950). Once the cab was stopped, the opening of a door by the officer was a valid security measure (People v David L., 56 N.Y.2d 698, revg on dissent 81 A.D.2d 893, 895, cert denied 459 U.S. 866; People v Vasquez, 106 A.D.2d 327, 329-330, affd 66 N.Y.2d 968, cert denied 475 U.S. 1109), and once the door was open, the officer could seize the gun that was in plain view (People v David L., supra; People v Guzman, 203 A.D.2d 381, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 967). There is no merit to defendant's Rosario claim in view of the officer's hearing testimony that, although it was his normal practice to do so, he had no recollection whether in this case he made written notes describing the cab and its driver.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.