Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for a hearing pursuant to CPL 400.21 and for resentencing, and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The defendant claims that his arrest was not supported by probable cause. The evidence needed to establish probable cause for an arrest need not be such as to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Miner, 42 N.Y.2d 937; People v Rivera, 67 A.D.2d 867) or even a prima facie case (People v Rivera, supra). "In dealing with probable cause * * * we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act" (Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, reh denied 338 U.S. 839; People v Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254). The police had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that the defendant had committed it (cf., People v. Carrasquillo, supra; but see, People v. Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, cert denied 449 U.S. 1018). Therefore, the arrest was a proper one and the seizure of the switchblade in the search incident to that arrest was authorized.
The defendant further claims that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender. Before the imposition of sentence herein, the defendant challenged the validity of his prior felony conviction by alleging that the jury had been coerced into rendering that prior conviction. As conceded by the People, the defendant's allegation constitutes a constitutional challenge (see, Matter of Plummer v. Rothwax, 63 N.Y.2d 243, 252-253; People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725). Such a challenge may be sustained even if raised for the first time at a second felony offender hearing and mandates an evidentiary hearing (CPL 400.21, [7] [b]; People v. Wright, 119 A.D.2d 973, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1058; People v. King, 88 A.D.2d 938; People v. Hubbard, 71 A.D.2d 924).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.