Defendant and four others were stopped by the police after they were identified by two citizen informants as having committed a robbery. These informants had initially approached the police and said that a friend of theirs had been robbed. The informants had joined the police in canvassing the neighborhood until the five men were located. Defendant initially ran into a hotel, momentarily disappeared from sight, but was nevertheless observed by a police officer moments after throwing a gun out of a mezzanine window. The gun was recovered, and defendant was arrested, after a struggle, near the open window.
Having pleaded guilty to possession of a weapon after denial of his motion to suppress the gun, defendant now contends that the gun should have been suppressed since the police lacked probable cause to detain defendant. To the contrary, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant, based on a specific identification by two reliable citizen informants, both eyewitnesses to the crime (People v. Avincola, 162 A.D.2d 288).
Even assuming, arguendo, that the police lacked probable cause for the initial stop, defendant took a calculated risk in attempting to discard the gun, which constituted abandonment, precluding his right to contest the evidence (see, People v Aybar, 162 A.D.2d 283, 284).
Concur — Ross, J.P., Rosenberger, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.