The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting testimony that suggested the existence of contemporaneous uncharged drug sales since its probative value in providing a complete and coherent narrative of the offense, including an explanation of why the police targeted defendant for continuing observation, outweighed any prejudicial effect (see People v. Pressley, 216 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 800; People v. Crespo, 203 A.D.2d 182, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 824).
The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation were responsive to defense arguments and did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).
The court provided a meaningful response when it properly advised the deliberating jury that its question regarding the interpretation of circumstantial evidence could not be answered with the simple "yes" or "no" called for by the question. The jury promptly reached a verdict without asking any follow-up questions (compare People v. Woods, 290 A.D.2d 346). In view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, the court's response could not have caused any serious prejudice (see People v. Agosto, 73 N.Y.2d 963, 966).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.