Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
After observing the defendant, who was driving a car with tinted windows, the police made an inquiry as to the status of the vehicle's license plate number, and determined that the car had an expired registration. The police then pulled the defendant over and requested his driver's license. A check of the defendant's driver's license revealed that it was suspended. The defendant was ordered out of the car. As he exited, he left the door open, which permitted the police to observe a gun protruding from under the driver's seat. The defendant was then placed under arrest.
We find that the defendant's claim that the physical evidence seized should have been suppressed is without merit. First, the police lawfully stopped the defendant because of an expired registration (see, People v. Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393, 396; People v. Daguilar, 158 A.D.2d 857, 858; People v. Osborne, 158 A.D.2d 740, 741-742; People v. Ricciardi, 149 A.D.2d 742, 743). Further, the police lawfully ordered the defendant to exit the car after they learned of his suspended license (see, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106; People v. Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369, 376). In addition, there was probable cause to arrest the defendant after the gun was observed in plain view and the subsequent seizure of the gun was also proper (see, People v. Ellis, supra, at 397; People v. Ricciardi, supra, at 743).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.