People v. James ( 1996 )

Upon a review of the facts, we decline to disturb the findings of the suppression court crediting the arresting officer’s testimony. Such testimony was not manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, self-contradictory (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88), or otherwise such as to warrant this Court’s rejection of the suppression court’s findings of fact (see, People v Ward, 198 AD2d 170, lv denied 82 NY2d 932). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.