ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the search of the vehicle in which he was a passenger and the seizure of certain evidence were unconstitutional because the stop for an uncontroverted traffic violation was a pretext for further investigation of a homicide. Generally, the legality of a search or seizure is measured by the objective circumstances, and not by the subjective motivation, if any, of the officer (see, Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 ; People v. Henry, 258 A.D.2d 473; [2d Dept., Feb. 1, 1999]; People v. Alcide, 252 A.D.2d 591 ; People v. McCoy, 239 A.D.2d 437, 439 ). Here, the stop of the vehicle was objectively valid based on the officer's personal observation of a traffic violation, and "is no less valid merely because the officer might also have been entertaining more serious suspicions" (People v. Dougherty, 251 A.D.2d 344, 345 ; see also, Whren v. United States, supra; People v. Henry, supra).
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 the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5]).