Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was observed by a department store security guard placing 15 boxes of flatware into a shopping bag and then exiting the store without paying for the merchandise. The defendant was stopped by the guard immediately outside the store and subsequently arrested.
While we previously determined that the defendant was entitled to a hearing with respect to that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to his arrest (see, People v. Vega, 188 A.D.2d 499, supra), upon our review of that hearing, we find that there was probable cause for the initial stop of the defendant and his subsequent warrantless arrest. It is well settled that probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances, viewed together, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that an offense was committed and the person arrested was the perpetrator (see, People v Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248; People v. Javier, 175 A.D.2d 182; People v. Rivera, 166 A.D.2d 678). Since the guard personally observed the defendant remove the flatware and then exit the store without paying for the items, probable cause existed for the defendant's arrest and the subsequent seizure of the flatware from the defendant's person. The suppression hearing raised no issues which would serve to undermine this conclusion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied suppression.
The defendant does not challenge the hearing court's report with respect to the suppression ruling.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.