Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claims of error with respect to the admission of background evidence offered to explain that it is not unusual that no purchase money be recovered, and the prosecutor's remark that the courtroom should be sealed for the undercover officer's testimony (see, People v Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v Walker, 139 A.D.2d 546).
In any event, the brief and limited background evidence by the sergeant supervising this "buy and bust" operation was properly admitted, and was not unduly prejudicial or suggestive (see, People v Kane, 207 A.D.2d 846; People v Tevaha, 204 A.D.2d 92, affd 84 N.Y.2d 879, supra).
The prosecutor's remark does not warrant reversal (cf., People v Roman, 35 N.Y.2d 978). Any prejudice that might have been caused by the remark could have been cured by a prompt curative instruction which the defendant expressly declined to seek (see, People v Diaz, 112 A.D.2d 311). In any event, in light of the strong evidence of the defendant's guilt and the court's subsequent instructions not to give a police officer greater credibility than that afforded to other witnesses, any error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
Finally, the sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.