PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1] ) and assault in the second degree (§ 120. 05[3] ).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly refused to suppress controlled substances seized from his person following his arrest.   A plainclothes officer testified at the suppression hearing that, as he drove by defendant in an unmarked vehicle in an area known for numerous drug sales, defendant made a hand gesture that in the officer's experience indicated that defendant was selling drugs.   The officer radioed a detailed description of defendant to uniformed officers who thereafter approached defendant and the group of people with whom he was standing.   We conclude that the officers had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, justifying their common-law inquiry of defendant (see People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562;  People v. Rivera, 175 A.D.2d 78, 79-80, 572 N.Y.S.2d 327, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1129, 578 N.Y.S.2d 887, 586 N.E.2d 70;  see generally People v. Pettiford, 220 A.D.2d 261, 262, 632 N.Y.S.2d 83).   Upon being asked for identification, defendant knocked down one of the officers and fled from the scene, thus justifying a greater level of police intrusion, which eventually led to his arrest (see People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734, 736, 506 N.Y.S.2d 320, 497 N.E.2d 687;  Rivera, 175 A.D.2d at 79-80, 572 N.Y.S.2d 327).   The search of defendant's person, resulting in the seizure of the controlled substances sought to be suppressed, was incident to that lawful arrest (see People v. Weintraub, 35 N.Y.2d 351, 353-354, 361 N.Y.S.2d 897, 320 N.E.2d 636).   We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: