Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing indicates that the stop of the vehicle in which the defendant was riding was reasonable since it was based upon the fact that it was being operated with one headlight in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) (1) (see, People v McDaniel, 114 A.D.2d 471; People v Seruya, 113 A.D.2d 777, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 767; People v Sherman, 106 A.D.2d 416). There is no basis for concluding that the officers stopped the vehicle for the traffic violation merely as a pretext to investigate unrelated activity (cf., People v Llopis, 125 A.D.2d 416; People v Flanagan, 56 A.D.2d 658). Moreover, the one police officer's use of a flashlight to peer into the rear of the vehicle, after he observed one of the passengers engage in some suspicious movements with his feet, was permissible and the court properly denied suppression of the shotgun he observed at that time (People v Hernandez, 125 A.D.2d 492, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 828; cf., People v Milaski, 62 N.Y.2d 147). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.