Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The admission of background testimony of the police officers explaining generally what is a "buy and bust" operation and the roles played by the police officers helped the jury understand the actions of the police which led to the defendant's arrest, to explain why no drugs or buy money was recovered from the defendant who was arrested shortly after the sale, and did not impermissibly imply that the defendant was involved in a large-scale drug operation (see, People v. Williams, 204 A.D.2d 183; People v. Pacheco, 198 A.D.2d 59; People v. McCray, 60 A.D.2d 895). Accordingly, the admission of that testimony was proper.
The prosecutor's statements in summation were either a fair response to the defense counsel's summation or were fair comment on the evidence adduced at the trial (see, People v. Sumpter, 192 A.D.2d 628; People v. Thybulle, 189 A.D.2d 790; People v Torres, 121 A.D.2d 663; People v. Oakley, 114 A.D.2d 473).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive and should not be disturbed (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.