The court properly received evidence that, on two occasions subsequent to the sale in question, officers approached defendant after being in radio contact with the undercover officer who made the sale. Such testimony was needed to complete the narrative and explain how defendant came to be arrested six months after the first sale (see, People v. Jones, 160 A.D.2d 333, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 790). In any event, assuming,arguendo, that this evidence constituted improper bolstering, such errors were also harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
Defendant's challenges to isolated portions of 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 portions did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see,People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.