DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in permitting testimony regarding uncharged crimes. The testimony was relevant and material as background information which explained the sequence of events on the night of the defendant's arrest and was probative of the defendant's consciousness of guilt ( see, People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835; People v. Major, 243 A.D.2d 310). The defendant's contention that the failure of the Supreme Court to give a contemporaneous limiting instruction constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Leitzsey, 173 A.D.2d 488). In any event, in its final charge, the Supreme Court properly instructed the jury that such testimony could not be considered as evidence that the defendant committed the crimes charged or that he had a propensity to do so.
The defendant's sentence is not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
ALTMAN, J.P., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.