Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the cocaine recovered from the back seat of the stolen car in which he was arrested. The stop of the stolen car was clearly proper, as was the seizure of the gun discovered during a frisk of the defendant incident to his arrest. Having discovered the gun in the course of securing the stolen car, the limited search conducted of the back seat was appropriate pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement (see, People v Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673; People v Dawkins, 181 A.D.2d 407; People v Miller, 177 A.D.2d 989; People v Campbell, 176 A.D.2d 814; People v Rose, 159 A.D.2d 600). In addition, the cocaine discovered in plain view inside an open shopping bag was properly ruled admissible. Moreover, even assuming, as the defendant argues, that the cocaine was not in an open bag but was inside a closed container, the search still would have been proper, as closed containers may be opened during a search rightfully conducted pursuant to the automobile exception (see, People v Blasich, supra; People v Dawkins, supra; People v Miller, supra; People v Rose, supra).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.