We note that defense counsel had the opportunity to comment during summation on the People's failure to call the witness (seePeople v. Fassino , 169 A.D.3d 921, 922–923, 94 N.Y.S.3d 360 ; People v. Barber , 133 A.D.3d 868, 870, 22 N.Y.S.3d 63 ). The defendant waived his contention that one of the jurors was not qualified to serve by failing to challenge that juror for cause before he was sworn (see CPL 270.15[4] ; People v. Wiggins, 146 A.D.3d 995, 996, 48 N.Y.S.3d 676 ; People v. Sellers, 295 A.D.2d 629, 744 N.Y.S.2d 870 ).The sentence imposed was not excessive (seePeople v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
Here, the record supports the court's determination to credit the testimony of a detective, experienced in policing crimes involving narcotics, that the police were conducting surveillance of a residence in response to community complaints that narcotics were being sold by a woman out of that residence, that there had been an arrest earlier in the day of someone leaving that residence with narcotics, and that the detective observed the woman and the defendant exchanging an item for money. As such, the police had reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed a crime, which justified the stop of the vehicle he was traveling in immediately after the exchange (see People v. Wiggins , 146 A.D.3d 995, 995–996, 48 N.Y.S.3d 676 ; People v. Cespedes , 120 A.D.3d 585, 585–586, 990 N.Y.S.2d 823 ; People v. Hurdle , 106 A.D.3d 1100, 1104, 965 N.Y.S.2d 626 ). The detective's observations, coupled with his confirmation that an officer had stopped the woman and recovered a quantity of heroin that she had just purchased from the defendant, were sufficient to supply probable cause for the defendant ‘s arrest (see People v. Smith , 168 A.D.3d 885, 886, 91 N.Y.S.3d 463 ; People v. Cotsifas , 100 A.D.3d 1015, 1015, 954 N.Y.S.2d 219 ).
The defendant's contentions that either he did not receive Miranda warnings (seeMiranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ), the warnings were insufficient, or the warnings should have been repeated, are without merit. We accord deference to a hearing court's credibility determinations and will not disturb them unless the record does not support them (seePeople v. Wiggins, 146 A.D.3d 995, 995, 48 N.Y.S.3d 676 ). Here, the County Court credited a detective's testimony at the suppression hearing that he fully administered Miranda warnings to the defendant before questioning him, and this credibility determination is supported by the record ( id. ).