Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
According to the undisputed evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger was stopped by police after it went through a red light. One of several officers who approached the vehicle observed the defendant make hand movements toward the waistband area of his pants and thus directed that the defendant get out of the vehicle. When defendant did so, the officer observed a bulge at defendant's waistline. The ensuing frisk produced a gun.
The defendant's contention that it was not reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for the officer to order him out of the vehicle is without merit (see, People v Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, cert denied 493 U.S. 966, 110 S Ct 411; People v Francois, 155 A.D.2d 685). Moreover, given the danger inherent in the stop of a motor vehicle (see, Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106; People v Robinson, supra; People v Francois, supra; People v Livigni, 88 A.D.2d 386, affd 58 N.Y.2d 894) and the defendant's noteworthy waistline bulge, which is a "telltale [sign] of a weapon" (People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 221), toward which the defendant made hand motions, the frisk was also a reasonable precautionary action. The Supreme Court therefore properly concluded that the defendant's arrest was not the product of unlawfully intrusive police conduct.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.