The trial court properly admitted evidence of additional drug sales which occurred minutes before the arrest and were linked to a specific material issue in the case, i.e., whether defendant possessed the narcotics with intent to sell ( see, People v Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 54). The evidence was also relevant for narrative purposes and to explain the officer's conduct ( People v. Pressley, 216 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 800). Contrary to defendant's claim, the trial court did give consideration to whether the probative value of the evidence of the uncharged sales outweighed the prejudicial effect of such testimony. Since defendant never requested a limiting instruction concerning this testimony, his claim that the trial court erred in failing to give such a charge is unpreserved for appellate review ( People v Maldonado, 220 A.D.2d 212, 213, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 904) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
We find that the supplemental Allen charge, "when taken as a whole" ( People v. Alvarez, 86 N.Y.2d 761, 763), was proper since it sufficiently conveyed the concept that the jurors were to reach a joint verdict only if their own individual consciences were satisfied with that verdict.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.