Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County (Paul O. Sullivan, J.), rendered December 13, 2005. The judgments convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of resisting arrest and harassment in the second degree.

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

Three police officers were dispatched to investigate a complaint by an identified person, who stated that, minutes before, and on behalf of the absentee owner, she entered a vacant apartment and encountered two trespassers. The complainant met with one of those officers near the premises and repeated her information. The officers' observation of a partially open apartment door corroborated the complainant's statement that she had opened the door with her own key. The officers entered the unfurnished apartment and discovered defendant and his companion asleep on the floor, amid a litter of empty alcoholic beverage containers. In the course of the ensuing investigation, defendant attempted to strike one of the officers in the face with his closed fist and resisted his arrest for that act. Although trespassing charges were not pursued against defendant, we conclude that the police reasonably relied on the complainant's apparent authority to permit them to enter the apartment, without a warrant, to investigate the trespass complaint (People v Gonzalez, 88 NY2d 289 [1996]; People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1 [1981]; see e.g. People v Dean, 46 AD3d 1229 [2007]). There was nothing ambiguous in the circumstances known to the officers that would cause a reasonable person to question the complainant's assertion of authority (People v Gonzalez, 88 NY2d at 296). Accordingly, we find that the police properly entered the premises, notwithstanding defendant's contention that his presence on the premises was lawful (see People v Adams, 53 NY2d at 9-10; People v Teage, 173 AD2d 878, 879 [1991]; People v Mills, 159 AD2d 520, 521 [1990]; People v Anderson, 146 AD2d 638, 640 [1989]). As the subsequent arrest, which was precipitated by defendant's attempt to strike one of the officers, was supported by probable cause, the court below properly denied [*2]suppression of defendant's statements (e.g. People v Matus, 166 AD2d 464, 465 [1990]).

We find no error in the court's permitting the People to offer, at trial, extracts from defendant's prior testimony at a hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h in connection with defendant's pending civil action arising from the incident herein. Defendant's testimony constituted admissions that were material to the People's proof against defendant at the criminal trial and was competent evidence against him (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 151 n [2005]; People v Chico, 90 NY2d 585, 589 [1997]; People v Jackson, 29 AD3d 409, 411-412 [2006]; see Prince, Richardson on Evidence §§ 8-201, 8-251 [Farrell 11th ed]). Moreover, the trial court instructed the jury that the testimony was from a "prior proceeding." Thus, the jury was not informed that the testimony was given by defendant in connection with his civil claims against the police and the municipal employer.

We find defendant's remaining claims of error without merit or unpreserved, or to the extent they are preserved and meritorious, harmless as against overwhelming proof of guilt. Defendant's sentence of probation was neither unduly harsh nor excessive (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]), and we decline to exercise our discretion to modify the sentence (cf. CPL 470.15 [6] [b]).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 16, 2008