Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's claims, evidence of his prior sale of cocaine, which had not resulted in a conviction, was properly admitted into evidence during the People's direct case to establish the defendant's knowledge of and exercise of dominion and control over the cocaine involved in the case at bar, and the jury was properly instructed on this issue (see, People v Satiro, 72 N.Y.2d 821, 822; People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245; People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293; People v Maye, 206 A.D.2d 846; People v Gamble, 177 A.D.2d 503; People v Mosiurchak, 157 A.D.2d 1023; People v Grieco, 125 A.D.2d 489; People v Sbraccia, 92 A.D.2d 628).
Moreover, based upon the defendant's admission that he owned the home in question, the evidence that he was discovered in a bedroom that contained a closet in which cocaine was found, and the evidence that he had gone to a bedroom to obtain the cocaine that he sold to an undercover officer just prior to the execution of the search warrant, the People established the defendant's constructive possession of the contents of the bedroom closet and the narcotics found in the pocket of a fur coat therein (see, People v Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561, 572-573; People v Torres, 68 N.Y.2d 677; People v Gomez, 191 A.D.2d 583; People v Mejie, 186 A.D.2d 155; People v Rosa, 150 A.D.2d 623; People v Tirado, 47 A.D.2d 193, affd 38 N.Y.2d 955; People v Diaz, 112 A.D.2d 311).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the holding of People v Ryan ( 82 N.Y.2d 497) should be applied retroactively, and that the People failed to establish his knowledge of the weight of the cocaine found in his possession (see, People v Okehoffurum, 201 A.D.2d 508; see also, People v Douglas, 205 A.D.2d 280).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) or without merit. Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.