Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses firsthand, is to be accorded much weight on appeal (see, People v. Prochillo, 41 N.Y.2d 759), and it should be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous (see, People v. Singletary, 135 A.D.2d 757). Inasmuch as that court's determination is supported by the record, it will not be disturbed on appeal (see, People v. Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the police officer testified that he saw the automobile in question being driven erratically before it pulled into a parking spot. This observation provided an articulable reason sufficient to justify the officer's approaching the parked vehicle to inquire as to whether something was wrong with the driver (see, People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210). Further, the driver's unwillingness to exit the automobile and his reaching under the seat were sufficient to give rise to the officer's reasonable suspicion that the occupants might be armed and that he and his partner were in danger of physical injury (see, CPL 140.50; People v Prochillo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, supra; People v. De Bour, supra), justifying the officer's asking the occupants to exit the vehicle and grabbing for the object in the defendant's coat pocket that the officer had correctly suspected to be a gun (see, People v Torres, 74 N.Y.2d 224, 231; People v. Prochillo, supra).
Insofar as we conclude that the removal of the gun from the defendant's pocket and his ensuing arrest were proper, the postarrest statements made by him to friends and family in the presence of as well as directly to the police cannot be deemed the "fruit of the poisonous tree" subject to the exclusionary rule (see, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 417). The hearing court properly determined that those statements were admissible, as the statements the defendant made to his family and friends were not the product of custodial interrogation, and the statements made to the police at the station house were made following a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights (see, e.g., People v. Montalvo, 199 A.D.2d 283; People v. Sims, 127 A.D.2d 712, 713; People v. Bonacorsa, 115 A.D.2d 546).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller, and Ritter, JJ., concur.