Opinion
October 30, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the hearing court properly denied the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress a brown leather bag and the gun that it contained. The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that the arresting officer acted lawfully when he approached the appellant in order to request information (see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Fitz, 187 A.D.2d 449). The appellant's act of dropping the bag in the face of lawful police conduct and denying ownership thereof when asked if it was his constituted an abandonment of the bag (see, People v Diaz, 80 N.Y.2d 950; People v. Toodles, 184 A.D.2d 674). Once the bag was abandoned by the appellant, the officer could properly retrieve and open the bag, and the discovery of the gun inside provided him with probable cause to arrest the appellant (see, People v. Diaz, supra; Matter of Miguel C., 196 A.D.2d 868; People v. Frazier, 191 A.D.2d 220).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; Matter of Stafford B., 187 A.D.2d 649, 650), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding order. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, who saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Her determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88; Matter of Joseph J., 205 A.D.2d 776). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15). Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.