Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in allowing testimony regarding his statement to the police that he had stolen food from a Waldbaum's store and sold it to a restaurant called Lindy House. That testimony concerning an unrelated crime was not probative of either the defendant's intent or motive to commit the charged offense ( see, People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350). However, the error does not warrant reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Given the strong identification testimony adduced at trial, there was no significant probability that the defendant would have been acquitted absent the improper testimony ( see, People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court was correct in denying his request for a missing-witness charge. In light of the testimony of two police officers that the search by the canine unit produced no results, any testimony from the canine officer merely would have been cumulative ( see, People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 428).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.