The court properly recognized the degree of discretion it possessed ( compare People v Arana, 32 AD3d 305), and providently exercised its discretion when it determined that substantial justice dictated that defendant's resentencing application should be denied ( see e.g. People v Vasquez, 41 AD3d 111, lv dismissed 9 NY3d 870). In considering such an application, the court is vested with a level of discretion to consider "any facts or circumstances relevant to the imposition of a new sentence which are submitted by such person or the people and may, in addition, consider the institutional record of confinement of such person" (L 2005, ch 643, § 1). The court properly considered, among other things, reliable information as to the large amount of cocaine that defendant possessed at the time of his arrest, which would constitute a class A-I felony even under the present law. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including his constitutional argument ( see People v Alea, 46 AD3d 398, lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1030).
[ See 2007 NY Slip Op 30659(J).]