e officer and the money recovered from his person upon his arrest. We reject the defendant's contention that it is implausible that a defendant would drop contraband in front of a police officer ( see e.g. People v. Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361, 321 N.Y.S.2d 884, 270 N.E.2d 709; People v. Sanchez, 248 A.D.2d 306, 671 N.Y.S.2d 450; People v. Braxton, 214 A.D.2d 468, 469, 625 N.Y.S.2d 228; People v. Cuevas, 203 A.D.2d 88, 89, 610 N.Y.S.2d 41; People v. Olivo, 189 A.D.2d 786, 592 N.Y.S.2d 394; People v. Harris, 186 A.D.2d 390, 588 N.Y.S.2d 184; People v. Encarnacion, 175 A.D.2d 874, 573 N.Y.S.2d 722). There is no basis in the record to conclude that the arresting officer's testimony was fabricated or conveniently tailored to overcome constitutional objections ( cf. Matter of Robert D., 69 A.D.3d 714, 892 N.Y.S.2d 523; People v. Lebron, 184 A.D.2d 784, 784–785, 585 N.Y.S.2d 498; People v. Miret–Gonzalez, 159 A.D.2d 647, 649, 552 N.Y.S.2d 958; People v. Quinones, 61 A.D.2d 765, 402 N.Y.S.2d 196; People v. Sanders, 49 A.D.2d 610, 370 N.Y.S.2d 201). Giving the appropriate weight to the credibility findings of the hearing court, which had ample opportunity to observe and evaluate the witness's demeanor while testifying ( see People v. Wheeler, 2 N.Y.3d 370, 374, 779 N.Y.S.2d 164, 811 N.E.2d 531; People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Cole, 85 A.D.3d 1198, 1199, 926 N.Y.S.2d 163; People v. Barley, 82 A.D.3d 996, 997, 919 N.Y.S.2d 86), we find no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination to credit the arresting officer's testimony at the suppression hearing. Moreover, the discovery of the drugs constituted probable cause for the defendant's arrest ( cf. People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734, 737, 506 N.Y.S.2d 320, 497 N.E.2d 687; People v. Green, 81 A.D.2d 621, 623, 437 N.Y.S.2d 698), and the lawful custodial arrest justified the contemporaneous search of the defendant ( see New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 457, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768; Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89
In People v Rutledge ( 21 AD3d 1125), the arresting officer testified that he saw the defendant from 50 yards away, in dim light, smoking a substance he discerned to be drugs based upon the duration of the glow as he smoked. The court found that the observed conduct failed to provide a nexus to any criminal act or particularized reason to stop the defendant and request information from him ( see also People v Lewis, 195 AD2d 523; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784; People v Sanders, 49 AD2d 610, 611 [reversing judgment of conviction on ground that police testimony that the defendant sold heroin to another individual in public view, looking straight at people he knew to be narcotics police officers, 10 feet away, since "only a moron would have committed" such a crime]). Where the testimony of the People's witnesses is unworthy of belief, "the People have not met their burden of coming forward with sufficient evidence and [the court should] grant the motion to suppress" ( People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 369).