Defendant's observed furtive actions, including a dash into a nearby building, apparently triggered by the 3:30 A.M. approach of a marked patrol car in a residential area defendant himself described as experiencing a high robbery rate, provided an objective, credible reason for the officers to inquire of the defendant as to his identity and purpose in the building at that early hour (People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 185). Defendant's responses and attempt to rid himself of any association with a bag that the officers had seen him carry into the building gave rise to the officers' exercise of the common law right of inquiry, based upon a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223). Defendant's calculated disavowal of any interest in the bag, unprompted by any illegal action by the police, constituted an abandonment thereof (People v. Marrero, 173 A.D.2d 244, 245, lv dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 969). Thus, the officers were justified in looking into the bag, and their discovery of a loaded gun therein established probable cause for defendant's arrest (supra). The hearing court properly denied defendant's suppression motion.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.