PEOPLE v. CORLEY (2021)

Judgment of conviction (Harold Adler, J.), rendered September 8, 2016, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony was riddled with contradictions and unworthy of belief is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not raise this argument at the suppression hearing (see CPL § 470.05[2]; People v Britton, 113 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1154 [2014]; People v Diaz, 69 Misc 3d 132[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51210[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 972 [2020], lv dismissed 36 NY3d 1046 [2021]). We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Since we do not find the officer's testimony to be manifestly untrue, contrary to common experience, self-contradictory, or tailored, we decline to disturb the court's conclusion that the testimony was credible (see People v Garland, 155 AD3d 527, 529 [2017], affd 32 NY3d 1094 [2018], cert denied ––– US ––––, 140 S Ct 2525 [2020]; People v Sanchez, 248 AD2d 306, 307 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 928, 930 [1998]). The officer's observation of a traffic infraction and erratic driving provided probable cause for the stop of defendant's vehicle (see People v Hinshaw, 35 NY3d 427 [2020]; People v Sullivan, 160 AD2d 824 [1990]).

Per Curiam.

All concur.