ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court improperly interfered in his examination of witnesses and expressed hostility toward his counsel is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886; People v. Fauntleroy, 258 A.D.2d 664). In any event, the trial court's intervention was appropriate and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. It appropriately clarified the issues and precluded unnecessarily repetitive examination (see People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944; People v. Harrison, 151 A.D.2d 778).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony which improperly bolstered the undercover officer's identification testimony is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. West, 56 N.Y.2d 662; People v. Thompson, 203 A.D.2d 497). In any event, the challenged testimony did not constitute impermissible bolstering because it was offered for the relevant, non-hearsay purpose of establishing the reasons behind the officer's actions, and explaining the events which precipitated the defendant's arrest (see People v. Gray, 203 A.D.2d 587).
The defendant's claim that he was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Smith, 73 N.Y.2d 961; People v. Hamilton, 205 A.D.2d 706). In any event, his felony conviction for criminal possession with intent to distribute cocaine under Virginia Code § 18.2-248(A) is analogous to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under New York Penal Law § 220.16(1) (see People v. Lewis, 250 A.D.2d 479).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.