Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the testimony of the arresting officer bolstered the undercover officer's identification testimony is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v West, 56 N.Y.2d 662; People v Chisolm, 174 A.D.2d 629). In any event, the defendant's claim is without merit. The arresting officer testified that after he was given a description of the seller, he went to the scene of the crime, spotted an individual who matched the description, and arrested the defendant. This testimony was a necessary explanation of the events which resulted in the defendant's arrest (see, People v Glover, 191 A.D.2d 582; People v Byrd, 187 A.D.2d 724). Moreover, the arresting officer's testimony that he observed the undercover officer drive by the crime scene after the arrest did not constitute improper bolstering (see, People v Velez, 189 A.D.2d 572; People v Gonzalez, 172 A.D.2d 276). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.