Opinion
April 28, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence J. Tonetti, J.).
Defendant contends that the police officers' testimony at the suppression hearing was incredible as a matter of law, and that the People therefore failed to meet their burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct. We find that the hearing court's findings of fact, crediting the officers' testimony, are not so "`manifestly erroneous'" or "`plainly unjustified'" by the record as to warrant reversal (People v Vasquez, 166 A.D.2d 194, 195, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 845, quoting People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). The evidence supports the court's findings that the officers legitimately stopped the car in which defendant was a passenger because it was travelling without its headlights; that upon approaching with flashlights, the officer who went to the passenger side of the car observed a package in defendant's lap which, from his experience as a police officer, he recognized as a "brick" or kilo of cocaine; that when the officer alerted his partner to the presence of the drugs, defendant attempted to get out of the car; and that the officers restrained him and recovered the package. The hearing court's findings are entitled to great weight (People v Falciglia, 153 A.D.2d 795, affd 75 N.Y.2d 935), and there is no basis in the record to conclude that the officers' testimony was fabricated (People v Rodriguez, 164 A.D.2d 824, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 943), or conveniently tailored to overcome constitutional objections (People v Vaneiken, 166 A.D.2d 308).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.