—[*1] Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Ruben A. Martino, J.), entered on or about February 8, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act constituting possession of a box cutter in a public place by a person under 21 in violation of Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-134.1 (e), and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police saw appellant and three associates encircling a food delivery worker in an area where there had been a pattern of robberies of such workers. This provided, at least, an objective credible reason to approach appellant's group and request information (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). The police conduct in requesting that the group "hold up a second" in order to question them did not elevate the encounter to that of a seizure or a common-law inquiry (see e.g. People v Bora, 83 NY2d 531, 534-535 [1994]; People v Reyes, 83 NY2d 945 [1994]).

One of appellant's associates then threw a knife into nearby bushes. When coupled with the prior "encircling" behavior, this fact gave the police, at least, a founded suspicion that appellant and the others may have been engaged in a joint criminal enterprise. Since the officers had a founded suspicion of criminality, they were justified in conducting a common-law inquiry [*2]by asking appellant and his associates whether they were in possession of any weapons (see People v Garcia, 20 NY3d 317 [2012]). Appellant's response led to the lawful recovery of a box cutter. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.