Opinion
November 14, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On June 15, 1985, at about 12:13 P.M., the defendant was a passenger in a car traveling along Pitkin Avenue in Brooklyn. Anticrime police officers followed the car in an unmarked police vehicle. During this time, the car was seen to reach a speed of 60 miles per hour and to pass through a red light. The car came to a stop and was double-parked when the police approached the driver and asked for his license and registration. The driver exited his vehicle, leaving the door open, and the officers observed a partially open satchel, from which protruded a plastic bag containing what appeared to be white powder. The driver and the defendant were arrested.
Initially, we find that the defendant had standing to contest a search of the car in which he was a passenger (see, People v Millan, 69 N.Y.2d 514; People v. Mosley, 68 N.Y.2d 881, cert denied 482 U.S. 914; People v. Hunter, 82 A.D.2d 893, affd 55 N.Y.2d 930; People v. Anthony, 21 A.D.2d 666, cert denied 379 U.S. 983).
However, we find that the evidence adduced at the hearing indicates that the police conduct was lawful and that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied. There is no evidence to support the defendant's contention that the police officers' hearing testimony was incredible as a matter of law or patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, People v. Matias, 137 A.D.2d 625, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1030; People v. Rivera, 121 A.D.2d 166, affd 68 N.Y.2d 786; People v. Brown, 107 A.D.2d 754; People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726). As the physical evidence was seized pursuant to lawful police conduct and the defendant does not contest that he was given his Miranda rights, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the statement at issue was also properly denied. Kunzeman, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.