The court's Sandoval ruling permitting limited inquiry into defendant's two 1982 convictions for larceny and robbery was a proper exercise of discretion. The convictions were highly probative of defendant's credibility and were not unduly remote ( People v. Miller, 184 A.D.2d 375, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1028).
Evidence of an uncharged contemporaneous drug sale was properly admitted to show that defendant intended to sell the drugs found in his possession ( People v. Mendoza, 245 A.D.2d 177, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 975), and to provide the jury with a complete narrative ( see, People v. Pressley, 216 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 800). Contrary to defendant's contention, the People "were not bound to stop after presenting minimum evidence" ( People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245).
Defendant's claim that the court's charge concerning defendant's decision not to testify was unduly lengthy is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.