Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: The court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop of the automobile in which defendant was a passenger. The vehicle was observed in the early morning hours less than a mile from the scene of the robbery and less than a minute after the arresting officer received the radio broadcast reporting the robbery. The car closely resembled the type of vehicle reportedly used in a nearly identical convenience store robbery two weeks earlier. The occupants of the automobile matched the general description of the robbers provided by the radio transmission. Under those circumstances, the officer was justified in stopping the vehicle based upon a reasonable suspicion that defendant and his companions had committed the robbery (see, People v. Marley, 201 A.D.2d 925; People v. Willsey, 198 A.D.2d 911; People v. Baker, 188 A.D.2d 1012, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 967; People v. Johnson, 102 A.D.2d 616, 623-624).
Reversal is required, however, because a reconstruction hearing disclosed that defendant was not present in chambers during a Sandoval conference. Defendant, therefore, was deprived of his right to be present at all material stages of the proceedings against him (see, People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656, 662; People v Hall, 201 A.D.2d 891; People v. Krouth, 201 A.D.2d 912). Contrary to the People's contention, defendant's presence at the Sandoval conference would not have been superfluous (see, People v. Odiat, 82 N.Y.2d 872; People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254).