Defendant's claim that it was error to permit the police officer witnesses, especially the undercover officer, who was the only eyewitness to the sale, to testify as experts on general practices used in the drug trade, with related statistical evidence on the likelihood of recovering buy money in buy and bust operations, is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the challenged testimony did not "cross the line between providing the jury with useful background and prejudicially focusing the jury's attention on the narcotics trade in general" ( People v. Tevaha, 204 A.D.2d 92, 93, affd 84 N.Y.2d 879, supra [distinguishing People v. Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248]).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rubin, Kupferman, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.