Defendant's challenge to background testimony concerning the "buy and bust" operation in this case is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the limited testimony that the police targeted the particular area because it was drug prone and the subject of community complaints was admissible to explain the police presence and conduct and that this evidence did not link defendant to general drug activity (see, People v. Washington, 259 A.D.2d 365, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1006).
Defendant's complaints about the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged comments generally constituted fair comment on the evidence in response to the defense summation and that there is no basis for reversal (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).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.