Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Because the court charged that the People relied on both direct and circumstantial evidence, without specifically instructing to which charge each type of evidence applied, the jury could not have known of its duty to apply the circumstantial evidence standard to a substantial portion of the prosecution's case (see, People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1023). Moreover, with respect to the charges of burglary, larceny and criminal mischief, the circumstantial evidence charge given by the trial court was inadequate because it did not state that the inference of guilt must be drawn fairly and reasonably from the facts, and that the evidence must exclude beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence (see, People v Sanchez, supra, at 1024). Failure to so charge requires reversal and a new trial (see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441-442; People v. Ball, 162 A.D.2d 989; People v Rodriquez, 134 A.D.2d 153, 154).
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress. The police articulated a sufficient basis to question defendant (see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 219) and to detain him for a limited time (see, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 240-243). Thereafter, they acquired probable cause to arrest him (see, People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423).