Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant, on foot, was stopped in a public place by an officer investigating a burglary which had been committed in the vicinity approximately two hours earlier. The officer asked the defendant for his name and an explanation of his conduct. Inasmuch as the defendant matched the description of an individual seen by a fellow officer at the time of the crime fleeing the burglarized premises, there were "articulable facts" justifying the investigatory stop (People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 238; see, People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; CPL 140.50 [a]). We note, moreover, that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the investigating officer to the crime scene, where he was identified by the fellow officer as the individual involved (cf., People v Hicks, supra). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly declined to suppress, inter alia, identification testimony as the fruit of unlawfully intrusive police conduct. Inasmuch as the defendant advances no independent challenge to the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 1682/87 based on a plea of guilty entered in that case, both judgments are affirmed. Brown, J.P., Harwood, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.