DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials, since they were made after a proper arrest on a parole violation warrant (see People v. Simpkins, 292 A.D.2d 471, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 702; People v. Frankos, 110 A.D.2d 713).
The defendant contends that the trial court should have charged criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law § 220.03) as a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see Penal Law § 220.16). We disagree. The evidence presented established that the defendant possessed more than the amount of cocaine necessary to have committed the greater offense in connection with one of several bags of cocaine recovered in his apartment. Thus, there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that he committed the lesser offense and not the greater. Accordingly, the trial court properly declined to charge criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree as a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see People v. Van Norstrand, 85 N.Y.2d 131; People v. Jackson, 220 A.D.2d 688, 689; People v. Palmer, 216 A.D.2d 883, 884).
S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and COZIER, JJ., concur.