Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of fifth degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The issue raised by defendant concerning the credibility of the two arresting police officers was properly placed before the jury, and after considering the relative force of the conflicting testimony and the competing inferences which may be drawn therefrom, we find no basis to disturb its determination.
Defendant's claim that the mandatory surcharge pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35 should be waived because it would cause him undue hardship is premature. Should defendant, at the end of his prison term, find himself unable to pay the surcharge, he may move for a waiver at that time. Furthermore, the proper procedure for raising a claim of undue hardship is to move for resentencing pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5) (People v Ramirez, 165 A.D.2d 656, 657, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 881).
Finally, defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive and we find no circumstances warranting a reduction given defendant's previous criminal record (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.