Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. When the officer observed defendant in a drug-prone building where the owner had executed a "trespass affidavit" requesting police assistance in removing intruders, the officer, who had made several prior arrests in the building, 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 (see,People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 191; People v. Greene, 271 A.D.2d 235 [Apr 6 2000], 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3891). When defendant claimed to have been visiting a friend, but claimed not to know the friend's name, and supplied an apartment number known by the officer to be non-existent, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass (see, People v. Magwood, 260 A.D.2d 246, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1004; People v. Rodriguez, 159 A.D.2d 201, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 742). Probable cause to arrest for trespass did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of that crime including scienter.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.