Opinion
February 22, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Angela Mazzarelli, J., Harold Beeler, J.
We reject defendant's contention that the officers' testimony at the suppression hearing was incredible or patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections ( cf., People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86; see, People v. Grajales, 187 A.D.2d 631, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 789). Notwithstanding some minor inconsistencies in the officers' testimony, there was nothing inherently incredible in their version of the incident ( People v. Vaneiken, 166 A.D.2d 308). Indeed, the record discloses the officers' conduct was proper throughout the encounter. The stop of defendant's vehicle was justified by the traffic infraction ( People v. Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, 775-776, cert denied 493 U.S. 966) and the seriously damaged condition of the vehicle, which was emitting smoke and liquids. Thereafter, based upon the officer's observations of defendant's gesture at his waist area and then of the gun-like bulge in that area of defendant's clothing, the officer had more than sufficient predicate to frisk defendant. As the frisk revealed a loaded semi-automatic pistol, the officer had probable cause to arrest him. We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.