Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
For the reasons stated in People v. Dames ( 208 A.D.2d 857 [decided herewith]), the improper bolstering of the undercover's identification testimony was harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242).
In addition, we agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of evidence concerning his prior arrest and conviction for possession of a controlled substance, as well as the fact that he wore a large amount of jewelry at the time of that arrest. Indeed, evidence of the defendant's prior criminal acts was unnecessary to prove his intent to sell the subject narcotics (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242). However, given the court's limiting instructions, which mitigated the prejudice to the defendant, and the body of unimpeached evidence overwhelmingly establishing his guilt of the crimes charged, there is no significant probability that he would have been acquitted were it not for the errors which occurred (see, People v. Crimmins, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit (see, CPL 270.20 [b]; People v. Lee, 193 A.D.2d 759, 760; People v. Francis, 99 A.D.2d 841; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Pizzuto, J.P., Santucci, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.