The record supports the hearing court's findings ( 169 Misc.2d 295) that once the police lawfully entered the main portion of the apartment after obtaining the consent of the lessee, they were authorized to conduct a protective sweep of defendant's separately subleased room, based on their reasonable belief that one or more of the perpetrators of an armed robbery might be locked inside with a rifle ( see, Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325; United States v. Patrick, 959 F.2d 991 [DC Cir]; People v. Paez, 202 A.D.2d 239, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 871; People v. Cornielle, 172 A.D.2d 681, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 964). We agree with the hearing court ( 169 Misc.2d 295, 302, supra) that a protective sweep is not required to be incident to an arrest. Once lawfully in defendant's room, the police properly seized the rifle discovered in plain view ( People v. Paez, supra). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments, including those grounded in State constitutional law.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ. [ See, 169 Misc.2d 295.]