MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The tax investigator's testimony, taken as a whole in conjunction with information supplied to him by his supervisor, furnished the requisite probable cause for him to enter the driveway and observe the activity there (cf. People v Rizzo, 40 N.Y.2d 425; People v Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 557-559; People v Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 91; People v Coffey, 12 N.Y.2d 443, cert den 376 U.S. 916).
Furthermore, though a private driveway leading to a home is not outside the area entitled to protection against unreasonable search and seizure (US Const, 4th Amdt; N Y Const, art I, § 12; see United States v Magana, 512 F.2d 1169, cert den 423 U.S. 826; cf. People v Doerbecker, 39 N.Y.2d 448, 452), the record in this case reveals that the driveway here was one in which the defendants' activities were carried on in such an overt manner that the suppression court had a right to find that the investigator, in positioning himself there, had not invaded an area as to which defendants had a logical expectation of privacy (see People v Doerbecker, supra, p 452; United States v Magana, supra, p 1171; Wattenburg v United States, 388 F.2d 853, 857; cf. Mancusi v De Forte, 392 U.S. 364; People v Abruzzi, 42 N.Y.2d 813, affg on opn at 52 A.D.2d 499). Also, the truck and other vehicles then available to the defendants for speedy and wholesale removal of the large stock of cigarettes presented exigent circumstances which made search and seizure of the contents of the garage in which they were located permissible without a warrant (cf. People v Vaccaro, 39 N.Y.2d 468, 472-473; People v Clements, 37 N.Y.2d 675, 679, cert den 425 U.S. 911).
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.