PEOPLE v. JAMES

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing testimony of a police officer that he observed the muzzle of a handgun in plain view inside the defendant's vehicle after stopping the vehicle for a traffic violation was not incredible as a matter of law. "Questions of credibility are primarily for the hearing court, and its determination is entitled to great deference on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous" ( People v. Baptiste, 192 AD2d 714, 715). The record does not support the defendant's contention that the officer's testimony was a fabrication tailored to nullify constitutional objections. Nothing about the officer's testimony was unbelievable as a matter of law, manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory ( see People v. Rivera, 186 AD2d 692; People v. Foster, 173 AD2d 841, 843; cf. People v. Miret-Gonzalez, 159 AD2d 647, 649). Consequently, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the handgun.