SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Christopher Thomas appeals his conviction for violation of supervised release on the basis of his commission of an act of public lewdness in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 245.00(a) (prohibiting intentional exposure of private or intimate parts of body in lewd manner or commission of other lewd act “in a public place”). Thomas asserts that the evidence presented at his violation hearing failed to satisfy the law’s public place element. Supervised release may be revoked when a preponderance of the evidence admits a finding that a condition of release has been violated. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We review a district court’s violation finding only for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Carlton, 442 F.3d 802, 810 (2d Cir. 2006). In conducting our review, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

While § 245.00 does not define “public place,” the New York Court of Appeals has concluded that a location “is a ‘public place’ for purposes of this subdivision where the objective circumstances establish that lewd acts committed there can, and likely would, be seen by the casual passerby, whose sensibilities the statute seeks to protect.” People v. McNamara, 78 N.Y.2d 626, 633-34, 578 N.Y.S.2d 476, 481, 585 N.E.2d 788 (1991). The evidence here showed that Thomas’s lewd act was committed in a hallway outside multiple classrooms in the Pratt Institute while *55 classes were in session. Thomas was facing the hallway and a classroom, with his back to the lockers lining the hallway, when he was observed by a student in one of the classrooms. .

Thomas does not contest these facts but argues that they do riot meet the legal definition of “public place” because his behavior was targeted at the single witness rather than passersby at large. The argument fails because § 245.00(a) contains no mens rea requirement as to public observance; rather, the likelihood of public observance is an objective test. See People v. McNamara, 78 N.Y.2d at 632, 578 N.Y.S.2d at 480, 585 N.E.2d 788 (“[T]he actor’s intent is irrelevánt to determining what is a ‘public place’ under Penal Law § 245.00(a).”). We identify no error in the district court’s determination that “the objective circumstances in this case make clear that the lewd act that Mr. Thomas is alleged to have engaged in not likely but definitely would be seen by this young student whose sensibilities the statute seeks to protect,” App’x 185, and we note as well the high likelihood that he would be seen by other students, faculty, or staff.

We have considered Thomas’s remaining arguments, and we conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.