Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The minor inconsistencies in the arresting officer's testimony upon which the defendant relies do not establish that the officer's hearing testimony was incredible or tailored to nullify constitutional objections. It is well settled that the determination of the hearing court, "with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses" (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; see also, People v Clement, 154 A.D.2d 545, 546; People v Williams, 154 A.D.2d 564, 565; People v Hughes, 138 A.D.2d 523), must be accorded great weight. We discern no reason to disturb the hearing court's findings, all of which were amply supported by the evidence contained in the record. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.