Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that it was sufficient to provide a valid line of reasoning to sustain the jury's verdict (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Further, there is ample evidence in the record corroborating the accomplice's testimony by connecting defendant with the crimes charged, thus satisfying the requirement of CPL 60.22 (1) (see, People v Moses, 63 N.Y.2d 299). We additionally agree with the suppression court that reasonable cause for the police to stop defendant's vehicle and arrest him was provided by the teletype alert received by the Georgia police. It indicated that there was a warrant for defendant's arrest for murder and armed robbery and gave a description of defendant, his female companion and their vehicle, along with the vehicle's license plate number (see, Whiteley v Warden, 401 U.S. 560; People v Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; People v Jenkins, 47 N.Y.2d 722, 724). Further, the officers were entitled to seize the weapon that they observed in plain view under defendant's seat upon his exiting the vehicle (see, People v Jackson, 41 N.Y.2d 146, 149-150) and to search the entire vehicle incident to defendant's arrest (see, People v Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393; People v Orlando, 56 N.Y.2d 441, 446; People v Pleban, 108 A.D.2d 880, 881).
We reject defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment because of the People's failure to begin defendant's trial within 180 days of his invocation of the interstate agreement on detainers (CPL 580.20). Because defendant never advised the Georgia authorities of his invocation of the agreement's 180-day time limit (see, Matter of Amiger v Long, 101 A.D.2d 616, 617; Matter of Hill v Jones, 94 A.D.2d 904), and because the delay in the New York trial was due to competing law enforcement interests in the separate party States (see, People v Vrlaku, 73 N.Y.2d 800), dismissal of the indictment was not warranted. Defendant's contentions that there were errors in the trial court's instructions to the jury have not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to consider them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15).
With regard to defendant's remaining contentions, we find them to be without merit.