Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court improperly allowed testimony concerning the contents of certain police radio transmissions in which he was described. However, the court properly permitted such testimony to explain the presence of police officers at the scene and to avoid speculation by the jury (see, People v Burrus, 182 A.D.2d 634; People v Love, 92 A.D.2d 551).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.