Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not erroneously deny the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the cocaine recovered from him upon his arrest. At the suppression hearing, the People presented the testimony of a police officer who testified that upon the information provided by an unidentified citizen, he observed a large plastic bag filled with a white substance that appeared to be cocaine on the defendant's lap, while the defendant slept in an automobile parked in an alley. After seeing this contraband in plain view, the officer placed the defendant under arrest. Another packet of cocaine was discovered after the defendant was searched. Although the defendant asserts that this testimony was a fabrication, tailored to nullify constitutional objections, the record fails to support this claim (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v Foster, 173 A.D.2d 841; People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726; cf., People v Miret-Gonzelez, 159 A.D.2d 647). It is well settled that issues of credibility are primarily to be determined by the hearing court which saw and heard the witnesses, and should not be set aside unless clearly erroneous (see, People v Prochilo, supra). On the instant record it cannot be said that the testimony proffered by the investigating police officer was incredible as a matter of law nor was it clearly tailored to nullify constitutional objections. As the hearing court's determination was fully supported by the record, we will not disturb it on appeal.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Miller, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.