The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Upon encountering a group of nine or ten persons including defendant descending a staircase from the second floor to the lobby in a drug-prone "trespass affidavit" building, the police had an "`objective credible reason' to ask defendant whether he lived there, which constituted a level one request for information and not a common-law inquiry" (People v. Tinort, 272 A.D.2d 206, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 872). Defendant's claim that he was subjected to a level two inquiry is not supported by the record. The police merely asked defendant and the others to continue descending into the lobby, which is what they were already doing. When they reached the lobby, the police promptly conducted a level one inquiry of the members of this large group in an orderly fashion that did not constitute a seizure or detention of any kind. When defendant stated that he did not live in the building, the officer asked him, in effect, to state his purpose for being there, but defendant provided no information. This provided the officer with probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass (see People v. Rodriguez, 159 A.D.2d 201,lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 742), resulting in the recovery of drugs.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.