"Stop and frisk" was not ruled unconstitutional. A federal district judge has ruled that the practice of doing stop and frisks in front of private buildings on the premise that the suspect had just or was about to commit a trespass on the private property is unconstitutional. It doesn't affect "stop and frisk" generally in the city, but the specific trespass stops conducted only in the Brox.
I don't really think they're distinct from Terry stops. Terry has two prongs: the seizure must be justified by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; a frisk must be justified by a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous.
Now, they might not be valid Terry stops. If they frisk as a matter of course, that's not valid. It seems in the Bronx they're playing fast and loose with the "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity" prong. In a city, anyone walking down the sidewalk may be "about to commit a trespass" by walking into a private building. My argument would be that this by itself isn't a basis for a reasonable suspicion.