Opinion
November 3, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the police officer's testimony at the suppression hearing was incredible as a matter of law, and that the evidence adduced at the trial was legally insufficient, are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, it is well settled that the determination of the suppression court, with its advantages of having seen and heard the witness, must be accorded great weight, and its determination should not be disturbed if supported by the record ( see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Gardner, 220 A.D.2d 613). The testimony at the hearing was not so flawed that findings regarding the police officer's credibility must be overridden ( see, People v. Rivera, 68 N.Y.2d 786).
Furthermore, although there were some inconsistencies between the police officer's hearing testimony and his trial testimony, minor discrepancies in testimony do not render the testimony incredible ( see, People v. Harvey, 175 A.D.2d 138; People v. Reyes, 118 A.D.2d 666; People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.