ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the admission of testimony that an undercover officer observed him in the vicinity of the area where he was arrested, one week before he was arrested, is without merit (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v. Cain, 193 A.D.2d 810). This evidence was relevant on the issue of the defendant's identification and did not necessarily implicate him in any uncharged crime (see, People v. Reid, 259 A.D.2d 505; People v. Ramos, 209 A.D.2d 448). Accordingly, since the probative value of this testimony outweighed any possible prejudice to the defendant, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in admitting this testimony.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, those contentions are either without merit (see, People v. Rivera, 178 A.D.2d 620; People v. Hardy, 146 A.D.2d 645), or constitute harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Arthur, 186 A.D.2d 661; People v. Alfonso, 270 A.D.2d 280).