Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence based upon the alleged lack of probable cause for his arrest was properly denied. The arresting officer was clearly justified in following the vehicle operated by the defendant, as it matched the description of an automobile set forth in a radio transmission regarding an attempted robbery by two black males in a white Audi bearing New Jersey license plates and last seen heading in his direction. Moreover, the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on his additional observations that it was being operated erratically and that the defendant and his passenger generally fit the broadcast description and appeared to be slouched down in their seats to escape detection (see, People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; People v Buckley, 147 A.D.2d 898, affd 75 N.Y.2d 843; People v Byrd, 156 A.D.2d 374; People v Jefferson, 155 A.D.2d 620). Additionally, there was ample probable cause for the defendant's arrest, as he disregarded directions to stop, collided with several other vehicles in attempting to flee the scene, and attempted to take the arresting officer's handgun when the officer approached the automobile (see, People v Jones, 149 A.D.2d 970).
The defendant's pro se contention that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was insufficient to support his indictment for the charged offenses has been waived by his entry of a guilty plea to those charges (see, People v Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1). We have considered the defendant's remaining pro se contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.