Memorandum. There should be an affirmance. The police properly relied on information supplied to them by the air *887 line’s customer service agent (see People v Moore, 32 NY2d 67, 69-70). Based on the observation by the airline’s agent, the police reasonably suspected that defendant was about to commit a crime involving a forged instrument and, accordingly, by statute could demand of defendant his name, address and an explanation of his conduct (CPL 140.50, subd 1). Credibility is a factual question not generally within the scope of our review (People v Concepcion, 38 NY2d 211, 213). The conflict here between the testimony of the police and that of defendant constituted such an issue and was within the fact-finding power of the Appellate Division which, upon its review, affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.