Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that the officers who apprehended him reasonably suspected that he had committed an armed robbery, which permitted the officers, with guns drawn, to approach the defendant and to stop and frisk him. Specifically, the radio report received by the officers indicated that "three to four male orientals, armed with guns", had taken a robbery victim to the victim's home at a specified address in Queens. Upon arriving at the specified location, one or two minutes after the report was received, the officers observed that the defendant and his codefendant matched the general description, and that there were no other individuals in the area. Upon seeing the police, the codefendant dropped a VCR he was carrying and ran away, while the defendant, with his hand in his right-hand pants pocket, walked towards the approaching officers, who had their guns drawn. The totality of these circumstances gave rise to reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk the defendant (see, People v Harris, 132 A.D.2d 672; People v Johnson, 102 A.D.2d 616; People v Taylor, 76 A.D.2d 892), and permitted the officers to approach with guns drawn (see, People v Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, cert denied 449 U.S. 1018; People v Hardy, 146 A.D.2d 800; People v Johnson, supra; People v Wiggins, 50 A.D.2d 910). Thus, the seizure of the gun during the frisk was proper and suppression was not warranted (see, People v Mack, 26 N.Y.2d 311, cert denied 400 U.S. 960). Kunzeman, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.