PEOPLE v. ST JOHN (2023)

Judgment of conviction (Jeffrey M. Zimmerman, J.), rendered March 15, 2019, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony was “suspect” 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]). 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, including defendant swerving into the lane of oncoming traffic while making a wide turn, 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]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.