Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying his application to suppress inculpatory statements made by him to the police. "It is well settled that the determination of the suppression court, with its advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses, must be accorded great weight and should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v Overton, 188 A.D.2d 491, 492; see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v Richard, 215 A.D.2d 601). Given the logical and consistent police testimony which amply supports the hearing court's determination with respect to the issues of custody and defendant's receipt and voluntary waiver of his rights, we discern no basis in the record for disturbing the court's conclusion. Similarly, "[i]ssues of credibility are primarily to be determined by the hearing court * * * and, in the event the proof permits the drawing of conflicting inferences, the choice is for the trier of the facts and should be upheld unless unsupported by the evidence" (People v Oates, 104 A.D.2d 907, 910). The defendant's claims that he invoked his right to counsel and that the police employed coercive tactics to obtain his statements presented pure credibility issues which the hearing court resolved against him. Given the record before us, we decline to disturb the court's determination of these issues. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.