DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dena E. Douglas, J.), rendered September 25, 2018, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Guy J. Mangano, Jr., J.), of those branches of the defendants omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendants challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, as defense counsel made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal, which failed to specify any particular error (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Smiley, 73 A.D.3d 1096, 1097, 900 N.Y.S.2d 677). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), it was legally sufficient to establish the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jurys opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
Contrary to the defendants contention, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials. “[W]ith its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the testimony,” a suppression courts determination as to the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great deference on appeal (People v. Wheeler, 2 N.Y.3d 370, 374, 779 N.Y.S.2d 164, 811 N.E.2d 531 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Celestine, 208 A.D.3d 509, 171 N.Y.S.3d 377; People v. Baez, 202 A.D.3d 1102, 1103, 159 N.Y.S.3d 878). Here, the record supports the courts determination to credit the testimony of the police officers at the suppression hearing. Contrary to the defendants contention, the police officers’ testimony was not incredible as a matter of law. Any inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimony did not establish that the testimony was tailored to nullify constitutional objections and did not render the testimony incredible or unreliable (see People v. Celestine, 208 A.D.3d at 509–510, 171 N.Y.S.3d 377; People v. Barnes, 129 A.D.3d 981, 982, 11 N.Y.S.3d 669; People v. Sam, 164 A.D.3d 1379, 1380, 84 N.Y.S.3d 185).
The defendants contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of certain remarks made by the prosecutor and by the Supreme Courts handling of a jury note are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), and, in any event, without merit.
The defendants remaining contention is without merit.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., RIVERA, DOWLING and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.