Opinion
September 14, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. Police Officer LoPiccolo testified at the suppression hearing that he observed the defendant in a high-crime area display a small plastic bag to a woman and tell her "it costs you five dollars". Officer LoPiccolo radioed this information to his partner, who was in a patrol car one block away. As the patrol car slowly drove towards the defendant with its siren and lights off, the defendant dropped the bag on the ground, turned, and started walking away. Officer LoPiccolo recovered the bag and found a vial containing a substance he recognized as crack cocaine. The defendant was then arrested and six vials of crack cocaine were found in his pocket.
The discarding of the bag was not in response to any unlawful conduct by the police officers (see, People v McCants, 175 A.D.2d 847; People v Williams, 123 A.D.2d 652). By dropping the plastic bag and walking away, the defendant abandoned it (see, People v McCants, supra; People v Thomas, 161 A.D.2d 1167; People v Kosciusko, 149 A.D.2d 620). After he recovered the bag and found that it contained a vial of crack cocaine, Officer LoPiccolo plainly had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v Green, 168 A.D.2d 457; People v McLeod, 161 A.D.2d 671).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to sell the vials of crack cocaine. Any inconsistencies in Officer LoPiccolo's testimony merely raised issues of credibility. The resolution of the issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94; see also, People v Nieves, 143 A.D.2d 229; People v Storm, 114 A.D.2d 477). Its 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). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Lawrence, JJ., concur.