DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the complainant to testify that just before the robbery the defendant told him that he was a drug dealer. This evidence was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the robbery, and to enable the jury to understand the sequence of events, and was inextricably intertwined with the crime charged (see People v. Carter, 286 A.D.2d 773; People v. Capace, 273 A.D.2d 320).
The defendant's remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, does not warrant reversal.
FLORIO, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.