MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Following a lawful traffic stop, an officer approached defendants vehicle and spoke to him through his open drivers side window. The officer observed that defendant was sitting in an unnatural and contorted position, attempting to shield the right side of his body from the officers view. When the officer asked defendant where he was coming from, defendant provided inconsistent stories.
The issue on appeal, whether the officers conduct in subsequently requesting consent to search defendants car conformed with the standards set out in People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 (1976), presents a mixed question of law and fact and “our review is limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts’ determinations” (People v. McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521, 524, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265, 755 N.E.2d 329 [2001]). County Court found the officers testimony about defendants inconsistent statements and behavior credible and sufficient to demonstrate the necessary founded suspicion to request defendants consent to search the vehicle, and the Appellate Division affirmed (209 A.D.3d 1059, 175 N.Y.S.3d 625 [3d Dept. 2022]). The record supports these holdings (see People v. Battaglia, 86 N.Y.2d 755, 631 N.Y.S.2d 128, 655 N.E.2d 169 [1995], citing People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 191–192, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204 [1992]). Defendants remaining contentions are without merit.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum.
Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.