ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the hearing court improperly denied his motion to suppress physical evidence and statements he made to law enforcement officials after his arrest as the fruit of an illegal search is without merit. Initially, we note that although the hearing court was faced with conflicting testimony at the suppression hearing, its findings are supported by the record and, therefore, will not be disturbed (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Jakins, 277 A.D.2d 328; People v. Fryar, 276 A.D.2d 641). Based on the testimony which the court credited at the hearing, a New York State Trooper appropriately stopped the vehicle the defendant was driving based upon his violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see People v. Irizarry, 282 A.D.2d 483; People v. Jackson, 241 A.D.2d 557). Upon learning that the defendant's learner's permit had been revoked, the trooper had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on his violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511(a). Further, when the passenger in the vehicle stated that he did not know its owner, the trooper was authorized to impound the vehicle and perform an inventory search in accordance with standard police procedures, during which he discovered the cocaine in question (see People v. Irizarry, supra; People v. Jackson, supra; People v. Grear, 232 A.D.2d 578; People v. Salazar, 225 A.D.2d 804).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
PRUDENTI, P.J., FEUERSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.