Defendants suppression motion was properly denied. When the arresting officer arrived at the apartment building after being informed by three occupants of an apartment therein that a burglary was in progress, he found defendant, who was within the locked portion of the building, sweating and avoiding eye contact with the officer. These circumstances "ripened into probable cause to arrest for criminal trespass when defendant, upon being questioned about his presence in the building, falsely told the officer that he was visiting a friend who lived a substantial distance from the building ( see, People v. Judge, 236 A.D.2d 319, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1037; People v. Rodriguez, 159 A.D.2d 201, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 742). The removal of two watches from defendants pocket was proper as a search incident to arrest ( People v. Kadan, 195 A.D.2d 174, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 854), and defendants statements, which were not the fruit of any unlawful seizure, were in any event not admitted at trial.
Since the trial evidence established probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass, his conviction of resisting arrest was supported by legally sufficient evidence.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.