The record establishes that defendant's actions with respect to the evidence obtained by the police on the two occasions at issue constituted an abandonment of the property, thus authorizing a seizure of the property by the police without a violation of defendant's constitutional rights (see, People v Reddick, 124 A.D.2d 609). This is true even if it could be said that the police detained defendant on the first occasion. Prior to abandoning the evidence, defendant had ended his contact with the police and was acting independently and of his own accord (see, People v Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, cert denied 444 U.S. 969; People v Perez, 123 A.D.2d 791). Defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.
Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.