Opinion
November 7, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record supports the hearing court's conclusion that upon observing the defendant's car proceed through a red traffic light, the police had an articulable reason for making the initial stop of the car and, upon observing a gun being kicked under the seat by one of the passengers and upon hearing the defendant declare that he too had a gun, the police had probable cause to search the car and arrest its occupants without a warrant (see, People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; People v. Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the mere fact that the arresting police officer was accused, during the course of an unrelated trial, of participating in corrupt police practices while assigned to the 77th Precinct in Brooklyn, does not render his testimony in this case incredible as a matter of law. We note that the court reopened the suppression hearing expressly to allow the defense to question the officer as to the allegations made against him and found the officer to be entirely credible. We find nothing in the record to disturb that conclusion (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Africk, 107 A.D.2d 700; People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.