Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The prosecution established a sufficient chain of custody for the narcotics which were admitted into evidence. The prosecution witnesses provided reasonable assurances of the identity of the narcotics and of their unchanged condition (see, People v Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343; People v Barrero, 190 A.D.2d 680; People v Griffith, 171 A.D.2d 678, 680-681; People v Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835; People v Piazza, 121 A.D.2d 573).
Moreover, any deficiencies in the chain of custody did not bar the admission of the vials into evidence, but rather only related to the weight to be accorded to that evidence (see, People v Julian, supra; People v Leach, 203 A.D.2d 484; People v Brathwaite, 204 A.D.2d 733; People v Jackson, 199 A.D.2d 535; People v Ciro, 195 A.D.2d 568; People v Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835, supra).
The defendant contends that the court improperly allowed testimony concerning the contents of certain radio transmissions in which he was described at the crime scene. However the court properly permitted such testimony to establish circumstances relevant to the arrest and not to establish or bolster identification evidence (see, People v Gill, 215 A.D.2d 690; People v Burrus, 182 A.D.2d 634). Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.