Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the arresting police officer's testimony at the suppression hearing was so incredible and unworthy of belief that the court erred by crediting it. The officer testified that, while stopped at a traffic light in his patrol car, he had observed the defendant and another man engage in what he had thought was a drug sale. When the unidentified man began to walk away, the officer called to him and asked, "What's going on?" The unidentified man replied that the defendant had tried to sell him drugs. The officer then approached the defendant. After he asked the defendant a question, the defendant became excited, began to wave his arms, and a clear plastic bag containing money and drugs fell to the ground.
It is well settled that "[t]he determination of the suppression court, with its advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses, must be accorded great weight, and its determination should not be disturbed if it is supported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v McAvoy, 142 A.D.2d 605) " (People v Tromp, 160 A.D.2d 750; see, People v Davis, 166 A.D.2d 604; People v Rose, 159 A.D.2d 600).
Upon our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the arresting police officer's testimony is "`impossible of belief because it is manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory'" (People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88; see, People v Boone, 183 A.D.2d 721; People v Silver, 178 A.D.2d 499; People v Wright, 176 A.D.2d 473; People v Randall, 175 A.D.2d 142; People v Charriez, 174 A.D.2d 380; People v Smith, 143 A.D.2d 109). Balletta, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.