Judgment affirmed.
Criminal Term's ruling was proper because defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the vacant apartment from which the physical evidence was recovered by the police (see, United States v Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83; People v Cofresi, 60 N.Y.2d 728; People v Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160; People v Cacioppo, 104 A.D.2d 559). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, Criminal Term properly held that, upon seeing the officers approach, defendant entered the vacant apartment and attempted to divest himself of incriminating evidence, which was a calculated rather than a spontaneous act. Hence, defendant's shoulder bag and its contents constituted abandoned property which the officers were authorized to take into their possession. Lazer, J.P., O'Connor, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.