October 28, 2009. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 65 AD3d 484 (NY). Smith, J.

15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633). The defendant's remaining contention is without merit ( see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821; People v Tardbania, 72 NY2d 852, 853; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109; People v White, 5 AD3d 511; compare People v Williams, 65 AD3d 484, 489).

We decline to review any of these claims in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we find that the prosecutor's reference to defendant as a drug dealer was inappropriate, but not so egregious as to warrant reversal ( see People v. Williams, 65 A.D.3d 484, 489, 885 N.Y.S.2d 38 [1st Dept. 2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 840, 890 N.Y.S.2d 456, 918 N.E.2d 971 [2009] ), that the court's rulings on the other issues were proper exercises of discretion, and that any errors were harmless.We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

(id. at 350) Similarly, in the following cases, appellate divisions have held that the officer's "initial intent" in stopping the defendant is irrelevant (see e.g. People v. Randall, 143 AD3d 411, 411 [1st Dept 2016] [officer was authorized to stop the defendant for riding a bicycle unsafely and order him off the bicycle "regardless of whether the officer's initial intent was to give defendant admonition instead of a ticket, and whether the officer also wished to investigate a suspicious handle protruding from defendant's pocket"]; People v. Ross, 106 AD3d 1194, 1195 [3d Dept 2013] ["Given the unrefuted evidence that police officers observed two traffic infractions by the taxicab driver, they possessed probable cause to initiate a traffic stop, regardless of whether the infractions were the primary motive for the stop"]; People v. Williams, 65 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2009]). Thus, as the defendant concedes that the officer observed the honking by the defendant, the officer's unknown intent in telling the defendant to pull over his vehicle to the side does not affect the Court's analysis about whether the car stop was lawful.