Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. We see no reason to disturb the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. Given these determinations, we find that there was ample probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass after the officer observed defendant leaving an apartment in a drug-prone building, where earlier that morning the officer had been advised by the managing agent, who had previously executed a "trespass affidavit", that this was one of five vacant apartments in the building (People v. Magwood, 260 A.D.2d 246, 688 N.Y.S.2d 526, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1004 [July 7, 1999], 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 2276).
Defendant's claim that the hearing court should have conducted an in camera review of the prosecutor's file in order to ascertain whether it contained any Rosario material related to a separately charged individual who was seen leaving the apartment with defendant is both unpreserved (People v. Colon, 229 A.D.2d 301,lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 982) and waived by virtue of his guilty plea (People v. Rojas, 169 A.D.2d 464, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 966).
SULLIVAN, J.P., NARDELLI, WALLACH, ANDRIAS, BUCKLEY, JJ.