Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, on appeal, challenges the propriety of the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence and a statement made to the police following his arrest. He claims that the testimony of the arresting officer was incredible as a matter of law. It is, however, well settled that issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court and its findings should not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous (see, People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the record supports the hearing court's conclusion that the police properly stopped the vehicle which the defendant was driving after having witnessed the defendant violate various provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see, People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; People v Allah, 131 A.D.2d 765; People v Robinson, 115 A.D.2d 411). Once the defendant failed to produce his license, registration or insurance documentation, the police acted appropriately in ordering the defendant to exit the vehicle (see, People v Reynolds, 104 A.D.2d 611). The record, additionally, supports the conclusion that the observation by the police of what appeared to be marihuana protruding from the defendant's pocket, constituted a lawful predicate for the arrest and search of the defendant. This search resulted in the discovery and confiscation of a compound, which was later found to contain a quantity of cocaine.
We further find that the hearing court properly denied suppression of an inculpatory statement made by the defendant to the police after his arrest since the statement was spontaneous and not in response to any custodial interrogation (see, People v Theohary, 142 A.D.2d 620; People v Pileggi, 141 A.D.2d 866; People v Suarez, 140 A.D.2d 558). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.