The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of a contemporaneous uncharged drug sale. In addition to being relevant to defendant's intent to sell ( see e.g., People v. Mendoza, 245 AD2d 177, lv denied 91 NY2d 975), this evidence provided a complete narrative of the events leading to defendant's arrest, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect ( see e.g., People v. Pressley, 216 AD2d 202, lv denied 86 NY2d 800). Contrary to defendant's contention, the People "were not bound to stop after presenting minimum evidence" ( People v. Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245).