Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The court properly found that the warrantless entry into defendant's apartment, which resulted in the seizure of two knives in plain view, was justified under the emergency doctrine (see, People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173, 177-178;People v. DePaula, 179 A.D.2d 424), based on the totality of the information available to the officers concerning defendant's violent conduct, threats and disturbed mental condition. This information came from an identified victim-witness, from persons encountered by the officers on the street outside defendant's window, and from the officers' own observations. Contrary to defendant's contention, the danger did not abate during the period that the officers waited to gain entry into his apartment (see, People v. Glia, 226 A.D.2d 66, 71-72, appeal dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 846).
The evidence was legally sufficient to convict defendant of contempt of an order of protection, as his appearance outside the complainant's apartment violated the order's clear prohibition against appearing near her "home." Although the complainant was a college student who lived in a dormitory, the apartment was her permanent home, and the order clearly applied thereto.
Defendant's simultaneous possession of two knives, with the same intent, constituted a single act requiring concurrent sentences (see,People v. Rogers, 111 A.D.2d 665, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 617), and we modify the sentences accordingly.
We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.