Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions that he was deprived of his rights to a fair trial and to confront witnesses when the trial court permitted a police witness to testify to events leading up to his arrest ( see CPL 470.05; People v Sealy, 35 AD3d 510, 510-511; People v Maldonado, 21 AD3d 430). In any event, the testimony that anonymous informants provided the police with sufficient information from which the police identified the defendant as a suspect was not improperly admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather, was admitted to complete the narrative and explain how the police determined the defendant was a suspect and the actions they took to locate him ( see People v Monroe, 216 AD2d 494). Thus, the challenged testimony did not violate the defendant's right to confront witnesses ( see People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821; People v Ruis, 11 AD3d 714, 714-715). Further, the trial court did not err in permitting the police witness to testify to a prior photo identification of the defendant ( see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451; People v Francis, 123 AD2d 714). To the extent that it was error to allow the police witness to testify that the defendant was identified in a lineup and thereafter arrested ( see People v Samuels, 22 AD3d 507, 509; People v Fields, 309 AD2d 945), any error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his conviction ( see People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969, 970; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242; People v Sealy, 35 AD3d at 511; accord People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819, 821).
Viewing the defense counsel's conduct in its entirety, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Benevento 91 NY2d 708; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Hyatt, 2 AD3d 749; People v Bradford, 202 AD2d 441; People v Finch, 199 AD2d 278).