DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in admitting a detective's hearsay testimony concerning a codefendant, since the testimony was admitted to demonstrate how the police investigation evolved (see People v. Simpson, 256 A.D.2d 205, 206). Moreover, the defendant's contention that the admission of the detective's testimony violated his right to confront the witnesses against him is not preserved for appellate review (see People v. Alvarado, 294 A.D.2d 155, 156; People v. Hughes, 251 A.D.2d 513), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, KRAUSMAN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.