The court properly exercised its discretion in its Sandoval ruling where it limited inquiry, to two out of fifteen prior convictions that directly bore on defendant's credibility. Defendant expressly waived any objection to the admission of uncharged crimes evidence and then utilized such evidence as a component of his own trial strategy. The court properly admitted a statement made by defendant to his accomplice, since no prior notice is required for statements made as part of the criminal transaction ( see, People v. Clark, 198 A.D.2d 46, 47, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 870) or to persons who are not public servants ( see, People v. Smith, 219 A.D.2d 533, 534, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 907). Background testimony regarding the mechanics of street level drug sales and the tactics used by drug dealers was properly admitted ( People v. Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248, 252). The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation were responsive to defendant's summation ( see, People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.