Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the Mapp/Huntley hearing, the court properly credited the straightforward and uncontradicted testimony of the undercover police officers (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Gonzalez, 184 A.D.2d 525, 526; People v Perkins, 177 A.D.2d 720, 721). In light of the testimony by an experienced undercover officer who observed the defendant pass a plastic object to a woman in exchange for cash in a location known for drug trafficking, the court properly determined that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant and that the search was incident to the defendant's arrest (see, People v McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 604; People v. Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210, 213; People v. Malsh, 188 A.D.2d 686; People v. Matienzo, 184 A.D.2d 296, affd 81 N.Y.2d 778; People v. Brown, 151 A.D.2d 199, 203; People v. Bittner, 97 A.D.2d 33, 35-37).
The court also properly determined that the defendant's statement to another undercover officer was spontaneous, as the officer did not say anything to the defendant and there was no evidence that the officer should have known that his conduct of retrieving vials from the defendant's person during a pat-down and his display of the vials would have prompted him to say "they're not mine" (see, People v. Bryant, 59 N.Y.2d 786, 788, rearg dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 638; People v. Hylton, 198 A.D.2d 301). We find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in its Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 374; see also, People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170; People v. Ramirez, 206 A.D.2d 491; People v. Pegram, 191 A.D.2d 719; People v. McClainin, 178 A.D.2d 495; People v. Dunn, 203 A.D.2d 962; People v. Roman, 190 A.D.2d 831, affd 83 N.Y.2d 866).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, legally sufficient evidence of his intent to sell could be inferred from his possession of a substantial quantity of cocaine (see, Penal Law § 220.16; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245; People v Sanchez, 205 A.D.2d 472; People v. Clanton, 204 A.D.2d 810).
We decline to reduce the defendant's sentence in the interest of justice (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; see also, People v Wright, 204 A.D.2d 372), or are based upon evidence dehors the record and are not cognizable on direct appeal (see, People v Flack, 216 N.Y. 123, 125-131; People v. Nicovic, 204 A.D.2d 493; People v. Dyson, 200 A.D.2d 756). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Hart, JJ., concur.