Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On September 18, 1992, at 10:30 P.M., a police officer observed the appellant and his two companions walking down a residential street and looking into parked cars and down driveways. The appellant was carrying a duffel bag that appeared to the police officer to be "very, very heavy". The officer and his partner stopped their vehicle, exited, identified themselves as police officers, and approached the three boys. As the officers were asking "routine questions — where you're coming from, where you're going" — the appellant suddenly dropped the duffel bag and attempted to flee with his two companions. Hearing a sound like that of a gun hitting the ground, one officer grabbed the bag while the other officer managed to grab the appellant. Upon opening the bag, the officer discovered two sawed-off rifles and arrested the appellant.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the hearing court properly denied his motion to suppress the guns. Under the circumstances, the two officers acted lawfully when they approached the appellant and his companions in order to request information (see, People v Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181; People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v Fitz, 187 A.D.2d 449). The appellant's act of dropping the duffel bag and attempting to flee in the face of lawful police conduct constituted an abandonment of the bag (see, People v Diaz, 80 N.Y.2d 950; People v Church, 188 A.D.2d 271). Once the bag was abandoned by the appellant, the officer could properly retrieve and open the bag. The discovery of the guns inside provided them with probable cause to arrest the appellant (see, People v Diaz, supra; People v Frazier, 191 A.D.2d 220). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.