Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the hearing court's denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the handgun seized from his automobile is without merit. The Judge presiding at the suppression hearing credited the testimony of the police officer that he observed a gun in plain view on the floor of the defendant's vehicle. This testimony was not inherently improbable or incredible as a matter of law so as to lead this court to substitute its judgment for that of the hearing court (see, e.g., People v. Miller, 124 A.D.2d 599; People v. Africk, 107 A.D.2d 700, 702). Therefore, the hearing court properly found that the police officer acted lawfully in seizing the weapon (see, Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 740; People v. Price, 54 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is also without merit. Although certain inconsistencies appear in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, issues of credibility and the weight of the evidence presented are primarily for the jury to determine (see, People v. Concepcion, 38 N.Y.2d 211, 213; People v Coleman, 114 A.D.2d 906; People v. Rosenfeld, 93 A.D.2d 872). The People adduced sufficient evidence at trial to permit a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the crimes charged (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.