Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Evidence that the defendant sold a gun to an undercover officer was introduced to explain the defendant's motive for shooting the two complainants, whom the defendant believed had "set [him] up". Since the evidence was probative of motive ( see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264), provided relevant background information, completed the narrative of events ( see, People v Montanez, 41 N.Y.2d 63, 58), and was inextricably interwoven with the offenses charged ( see, People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 368-369), we find no improvident exercise of discretion in allowing this evidence to be introduced ( see, People v. Zorilla, 211 A.D.2d 582). The probative value of the evidence outweighed the potential for undue prejudice ( see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242).
The sentence imposed was neither illegal nor excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; People v. Truesdell, 70 N.Y.2d 809, 811; People v. Diaz, 210 A.D.2d 248, 249).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146; People v. Roman, 35 N.Y.2d 978, 979).
Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.