Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. The defendant was arrested in close temporal and geographic proximity to the crime scene and the prosecution established that a security guard, who called the police and provided a detailed description of the perpetrator which matched the defendant, was reliable ( see, People v. Parris, 83 N.Y.2d 342; People v. Hetrick, 80 N.Y.2d 344; People v. Vann, 245 A.D.2d 818).
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was not legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal, possession of stolen property in the third degree ( see, People v. Alamo, 34 N.Y.2d 453; People v. Neary, 189 A.D.2d 828; People v. Lieto, 176 A.D.2d 353; see also, Penal Law § 155.05, 165.50 Penal).
Joy, J.P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.