The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable restrictions on defendant's questioning of prospective jurors during voir dire (see, People v. Wongshing, 245 A.D.2d 186, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 978;compare, People v. Porter, 226 A.D.2d 275). The limitations imposed by the court concerned matters of improper formulation of the inquiries, and defendant was not prevented from pursuing the substantive issues in question.
By failing to make specific objections, defendant's various challenges to police testimony regarding typical buy-and-bust operations and street-level narcotics transactions are unpreserved (People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that this limited testimony was properly admissible as background and was not unduly prejudicial (see,People v. Johnson, 264 A.D.2d 632, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 864).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.