matter on our calendar is walston and valentine versus the city of new york and others key point here your honour's is that there was no in the issue of criminal activity and as a landlord said they didn't have a right to be there your honor the person was not the landlord it was not the person they had signed the lease with who ever that person was he supposedly told the police that the entire building was supposed to be vacant and it turned out that the police  i was unclear i am at my thought was the person who was consulted twice and who advised it was it was in me it was in the supporting it was on the supporting our own deposition for the criminal court the lease is actually signed by someone whose initials are m m michael mckay is what it looks like yes and i understood that there was testimony i guess that m m had been twice husband or wife to really young children raided by the emergency services unit who didn't totally overwhelming the whole building looking looking for someone involved in shooting a police officer the police say you have a lease so it's living there with their children as i say is not what the statute contemplates the statute there is there any authority actually as in new york law saying that the criminal trespass law doesn't apply to illegal occupants of a building no i could not find a case that specifically dealt with living in a building if you don't have a lease but all the cases not having all the indicia of that being your residence and that being where you were with your family and so as an example one of the cases cited sided by the there the arresting officers did not realize that the protesters had been told yeah a certain amount of you can come and sit in on this on this meeting that's going on they  the crime being committed under the statute which then existed here we don't have that in the issue that we don't have it even recognizing that a mistake was made in very upsetting circumstances to prevail in the one nine hundred eighty three claim you have to show that the officer didn't have arguable probable cause to make the arrest i'm having trouble understanding exactly on what basis you contend that he didn't have arguable probable cause i'm say he did not have drug or book probable cause because it was obvious to an officer should have been obvious to this officer who himself testified at his deposition that he had at least and it is then held that there should not be a summary judgment because that was not sufficient but it was clear that he was someone who lived there and did not meet the india share of trespassing these people are not entitled to be on these premises back no one isn't that on the premises and maybe we can quibble about whether the police displayed good judgment or bad judgment but what's before us is whether they had arguable probable causes based on that conversation with them word and the inability of the family to produce a lease of time and yet the building is full this is not the only family a victim the  other apartments occupied in that building and the entire building is emptied out your honor it isn't just my client well who is m m and who is the owner of the building do you now know the owner of the bill but i don't know considerations just to me if he told the police whoever he is twice that there should be no one in the building that he is the one that really caused the damage to your clients your point is well taken but certain things things are the way they  police court and carla for the city and the district court correctly granted summary judgment there are no disputed facts as to whether or not officer career he had probable cause to arrest if it would have been appropriate for him to say  you living here do you have a lease that would have been appropriate i think it would have been appropriate if he had asked he didn't and he had no i don't mandate and the but it would have been nice a do you have believe at the time he hadn't been in the apartment so he was outside he had been called in as back up because they were searching for a suspect and police shootings show he was outside what he knew was that the owner of the building had signed an affidavit giving them permission to search the building and had also indicated that no one was to be in the building then he saw the plaintiffs come out with an officer who told them that they had been in one of the apartments he asked at that point i think his partner again called the owner who again confirmed that no one was supposed to mean the building he then you see anyone else in the building and the other occupants of them i think he think according to his deposition i believe he saw other people being escorted out of the building as well there's no dispute that there were people in the buildings some doubts in his mind about what and was talking about when he said this should be no one of the bill that yes  family should then he asked them for their addresses and they provided him identification that listed addresses as other than this building at which point but was it apparent from what was visible that people were actually living there it was just people were passing through momentarily right with well he didn't at i don't know what some point if he went into the building but at the time reading you know before the arrest he hadn't been in the building he was outside as  backup they were on the second floor inside there yes and they were found there and another police officer escorted them to officer careering and told that they were found in the building and then his partner called the owner to confirm that gnomes supposed to be in the building again he said no i'm supposed to be in the building at which point officer career asked them for their address is not the right was not ten thirty nine and ten twenty nine and they gave him identification they never said when he asked for their address they didn't say oh we live here we live in this building we have a lease they gave him identification that listed their addresses was never inside the building i think at some point after the arrests he actually went in entirely reasonable for him to think that they were there without license or privilege do you have any sense of how frequent it is to make an arrest for criminal trespassed of someone who appears to be residing in a location  in which case they are still consider trespassers under the property law and you don't have to go through the housing court to get them a victim you can arrest people ever do you have any sense of their whether it's common to make an arrest for criminal trespass i don't i don't know how often but i know that the police often go through abandoned buildings and you know for squatters i don't know how often their arrests are made in the criminal proceedings that are carried on but the undisputed facts here are dispositive his claims it was entirely reasonable to think that they were trespassing and that the officer had probable cause to arrest and also to prosecute think eventually find the person they were looking for is he so yes they found him according to the police reports he was in the closet in the apartment that the plaintiffs were found the person that they were looking for  personal i know there was someone in the apartment who was found in the closet i'm not sure that that was the person who they were looking for for shooting the police officer in another location the only thing i want to point caution to believe that a crime had been a was about to be committed i don't think this officer exhibited reasonable cautious that he was outside of the building until and at the time of  no there is no dispute so here we have the police ruling a will someone else told him and someone else told them and we had emergency service unit local precincts and so on and sometimes a it occurs to me that there should were two ways that now a police officer shouldn't be allowed to say well i'm relying on what someone else told me that that's a way of getting in accurate information and it's a way of  of causing people to be arrested when there is actually no probable cause and they haven't done anything wrong thank you thank you both for services and the next batter on