Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contentions that the People failed to prove that he possessed at least one-half ounce of a narcotic drug and that he knew the weight of the drug that he possessed (see, People v Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v Hill, 85 N.Y.2d 256; see also, CPL 470.05; People v Logan, 74 N.Y.2d 859; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859; People v Okehoffurum, 201 A.D.2d 508; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245), and we decline to review these contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [a]).
Given the inadequacy of the defendant's moving papers, we find that the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, his motion to controvert the search warrant (see, CPL 710.60; People v Bashian, 190 A.D.2d 681; People v Vega, 145 A.D.2d 924; People v Jordan, 122 A.D.2d 224). Furthermore, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the police exceeded the scope of the search warrant. The narcotics in question were inadvertently discovered during a valid execution of the search warrant and, thus, were admissible at trial (see, People v Hardwick, 137 A.D.2d 714).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those found in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.