Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress the hypodermic instrument. The court found a police officer's testimony to be "credible and candid", concluding that the arrest of the defendant was based on probable cause. On appeal, the defendant concedes that the testimony of the police officer, if accepted as true, would support a finding of probable cause (People v McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 604). The observations of the police officer were not shown to be "manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory" (People v Stroman, 83 A.D.2d 370, 373; see, People v Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561).
"[M]uch weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses" (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761). Unless the findings of the suppression court are "clearly erroneous" (People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726), the suppression court's finding should not be rejected. This is so here despite the fact that the jury later acquitted the defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (People v Witherspoon, 115 A.D.2d 572, 573, appeal dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 805). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.