Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. While no testimony regarding the officers' experience and training was elicited at the suppression hearing, their testimony that they observed defendant and another man huddled with their heads down, defendant passing currency to the other man and the other man pouring several red-topped vials into defendant's cupped hands, and that the two then walked away in opposite directions after defendant saw the police, was sufficient to support the finding of probable cause ( People v. Caldwell, 197 A.D.2d 390, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 848; Matter of James P., 194 A.D.2d 467, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 659). Moreover, defendant's dropping of the bag containing the vials was an independent act involving a calculated risk that the drugs would be recovered ( People v. Prewitt, 120 A.D.2d 551), and provides an alternative justification for the seizure. Defendant's claim that the People failed to prove that he knew he possessed 500 milligrams or more of cocaine is unpreserved for appellate review ( People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice ( People v. Ivey, 204 A.D.2d 16, 19, affd 86 N.Y.2d 10). In any event, were we to review it, we would find such knowledge inferable from defendant's possession of almost three and a half times more than the threshold amount and the packaging of the cocaine in 41 vials ( People v. Sanchez, 86 N.Y.2d 27, 34). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v Noble, 86 N.Y.2d 814). Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.