Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The undercover police officer testified that, before he purchased cocaine from the defendant, a few people approached the defendant, handed him something, and the defendant handed them something back. This testimony was inextricably interwoven with testimony about the entire transaction. It was also necessary to complete the narrative and to explain why the defendant was targeted by the undercover police officer (see, People v Coleman, 205 A.D.2d 795, 796; People v Rodriguez, 207 A.D.2d 917; People v Campbell, 204 A.D.2d 474, 475; People v Green, 170 A.D.2d 530, 531).
The People should have obtained a ruling from the trial court regarding the admissibility of the aforementioned uncharged drug transactions before evidence of them was introduced (People v Williams, 197 A.D.2d 722, 723). However, the error was harmless because the evidence was admissible, the trial court offered to provide limiting instructions, and the proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming (see, People v Williams, supra). O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.