Defendant's contention that his motion to suppress should have been granted is without merit. Defendant's current argument that the arresting officer acted improperly due to professional inexperience is based on evidence adduced at trial and therefore does not provide a valid basis for an attack on the hearing court's decision (see, People v. Martinez, 133 A.D.2d 572, 574, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 957). The information before the hearing court was that the officer had received field training in the identification and packaging of narcotics. In any event, the officer's observation from short range of defendant handling colored vials of what appeared to be crack cocaine, coupled with the fact that defendant did not see the officer, provided the latter with probable cause to make the arrest (see, People v Espada, 186 A.D.2d 411, 412, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 788). Furthermore, the evidence was sufficient that defendant possessed 500 milligrams or more of cocaine.
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.