Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record supports the hearing court's conclusion that upon observing the defendant's vehicle at approximately 1:00 A.M. in a roadside telephone area noted for its high incidence of criminal activity, the police were justified in approaching the vehicle for the purpose of requesting information (see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223). Moreover, since the police approached the defendant's vehicle pursuant to their lawful right to request information, the observation and subsequent seizure of a lit marihuana cigarette, which had come into plain view from a lawful vantage point, was permissible (see, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466, reh denied 404 U.S. 874; People v Jackson, 41 N.Y.2d 146, 149-150). We note that the trooper's use of a flashlight was not an unreasonable intrusion and did not convert a proper observation into an impermissible search (see, People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 362, rearg granted and decision amended 35 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Baldanza, 138 A.D.2d 722, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 856).
Upon observing the marihuana cigarette, the troopers had probable cause to arrest the defendant and conduct a search of his person as incident to his lawful arrest. As a consequence, contraband found on his person was also lawfully obtained. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.