Opinion
April 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.).
The hearing court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the drugs recovered from his person and the statements he made to the police. Credibility determinations of a hearing court are to be afforded great weight (People v Fonte, 159 A.D.2d 346, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 734). Here, the hearing court credited the arresting officer's testimony, noting that he had testified "in a very direct and straightforward manner often looking directly at the Court"; in contrast, the court found defendant's testimony to be "marked by nervousness" and "halting". Moreover, the officer's version of events was plausible. Although defendant did not match the description of the alleged burglars mentioned in the radio run, the officer had a specific reason for focusing on someone coming out of the building reported to be the site of the crime. As the court noted, "[i]t would not make sense for the officer to have stopped defendant while he was investigating a burglary, if in fact he did not see [the vials of crack falling from defendant's person]". That observation established probable cause to arrest for drug possession (People v Espada, 186 A.D.2d 411, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 788); the ensuing search and seizure of the remaining vials of crack were incident to a lawful arrest.
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Asch, JJ.