—Order of disposi
Appellant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The suitably experienced officer’s observation of appellant exchanging small plastic envelopes for money with six customers who had formed a line in a drug-prone area, placing the money in his right pocket and something in his shoe, and then fleeing upon the officer’s approach, provided ample probable cause for appellant’s arrest (see, People v Valdes, 244 AD2d 268, lv denied 92 NY2d 862). We see no reason to disturb the court’s credibility determinations. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
