Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress the statements made by him to the police.
The defendant gave his first statement to the police when several officers, during the course of an investigatory noncustodial inquiry, asked him as he stood on a Brooklyn street adjacent to his car whether he knew that the car had been involved in a robbery. At no time during the contact did the police use or threaten the use of force. In view of the foregoing facts, we conclude that a reasonable man, innocent of any crime, who found himself in the above circumstances would not have considered himself to be in custody (see, People v Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585). Because the questioning that occurred at that time was not custodial in nature, there was no requirement that the defendant had to be advised of his Miranda rights.
Furthermore, there is no basis for disturbing the hearing court's finding that the defendant was administered his Miranda warnings prior to making his inculpatory statement while in custody. Issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court and its findings should be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous (see, People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726). Mollen, P.J., Kunzeman, Spatt and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.