Judgment, Su
Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The police had reasonable suspicion upon which to forcibly stop defendant and his companion, who matched a sufficiently specific joint description (see, People v Morales, 246 AD2d 396, lv denied 91 NY2d 943), of two men who had just robbed a nearby store and shot someone. In any event, the police had a sufficient factual predicate for a common-law inquiry, and defendant lacks standing to challenge the legality of the patdown of his companion, which revealed a large wad of money and food stamps protruding from his pocket. A fair reading of the record establishes that defendant was not forcibly detained until after the police recovered this incriminating evidence from the companion, thereby justifying the detention of defendant until other officers could arrive on the scene to search the area for a weapon and conduct a showup identification (see, People v Cedeno, 193 AD2d 540, lv denied 82 NY2d 715).
The largely irrelevant portions of the testimony of the victim’s widow did not deprive defendant of a fair trial in light of the extreme brevity of the testimony and the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833, 836). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.
