Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of burglary in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644).
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request to make further inquiry of the jury after it received a note indicating that one of the jurors recognized defense counsel as the attorney who had represented friends of the juror's son. "Without more, this type of mere `acquaintanceship . . . does not raise a legitimate issue as to whether [the juror] was grossly unqualified'" ( People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077, quoting People v Garraway, 9 AD3d 506, 507 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPL 270.35; People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290). Morever, the County Court gave the jury a further instruction with respect to the inquiry, and there is no indication that the issue had any impact upon the jury's deliberations ( see People v Erving, 55 AD3d 419; People v Benet, 45 AD3d 1449; People v Devison, 38 AD3d 203; People v Wright, 35 AD3d 172; People v Young Min Kwak, 29 AD3d 385).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court also properly ruled that the defendant opened the door to testimony regarding his prior bad acts ( see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451-452; People v Pinto, 56 AD3d 494; People v Swaby, 2 AD3d 104). In any event, the evidence was admissible as background material to enable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with his codefendant and the complainant ( see People v Timmons, 54 AD3d 883; People v Farmer, 54 AD3d 871; see generally People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83).