Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established at the suppression hearing that the police had probable cause to arrest him ( see People v Alvarez, 100 NY2d 549).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree beyond a reasonable doubt since, among other things, the weight of the crack cocaine recovered was more than one eighth of an ounce ( see Penal Law § 220.09). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's request for a jury instruction as to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree ( see Penal Law § 220.06) as a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree because there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the weight of the crack cocaine recovered was less than one eighth of an ounce ( see People v Van Norstrand, 85 NY2d 131, 135; People v Walker, 300 AD2d 417). Upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
As the defendant's crime was committed on September 13, 2003 he was not entitled to be sentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 41 [d-1]; see People v Utsey, 7 NY3d 398; People v Savage, 29 AD3d 1022, 1024; People v Goode, 25 AD3d 723).