Opinion
May 3, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Pirro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony at the Mapp hearing was incredible and that the hearing court should have granted the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the vials recovered from him is without merit. Issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court, and its findings should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726). The arresting officer testified at the Mapp hearing that as he hid, he observed the defendant speak to another individual, move to another area, and remove vials from his sock. The officer knew from experience that this activity matched the telltale signs of a drug sale, that crack cocaine was often sold in vials, and that the area in which this activity took place was known for drug sales. Therefore, the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant, to search him, and to seize all of the vials which were recovered from him (see, People v McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594; People v DeSantis, 46 N.Y.2d 82, 87, cert denied 443 U.S. 912; People v McLeod, 161 A.D.2d 671).
The defendant's contention that a mistrial should have been granted because one of the People's witnesses testified that the defendant was the "target" of police surveillance is also without merit. We find that the court's curative instructions were adequate to cure any prejudice to the defendant that the testimony might have caused (see, People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865). Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.