Opinion
November 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).
Defendant contends that the police officer's testimony at the suppression hearing was incredible as a matter of law, and that it is implausible that the police stopped the car in which defendant was a passenger solely to issue a summons for littering, after one of the officers observed a great deal of garbage thrown from the rear window. We find that the hearing court's findings of fact, crediting this testimony, are not so "manifestly erroneous" or "plainly unjustified" by the record as to warrant reversal (People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Indeed, the evidence supports the court's findings that the officers stopped the car because of this observation, and that, upon approaching with their flashlights, the butt of a gun was observed on the back seat between defendant and a second passenger. There is no basis in the record to conclude that the officers' testimony was fabricated (People v Gruillon, 182 A.D.2d 580, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 832), or conveniently tailored to overcome constitutional objections (People v Vaneiken, 166 A.D.2d 308).
We also find that, to the extent defendant's pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the suppression hearing may be reviewed upon the record, it is meritless (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.