Since the evidence showed that the deceased was killed by a dissatisfied drug buyer, and defendant's case suggested, whether intentionally or not, that defendant was not likely to be a drug user, proof of defendant's drug use at or about the time of the crime was probative (see, People v. Hardwick, 140 A.D.2d 624, 625, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 957), notwithstanding that it reflected on defendant's character (see, People v. Moore, 42 N.Y.2d 421, 428, cert denied 434 U.S. 987). While some of this evidence was hearsay and opinion, this was harmless because the same facts were proven through competent evidence. In any event, any such error regarding this evidence was harmless in view of the overwhelming proof of guilt (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
Defendant's arguments concerning the People's summation are largely unpreserved, and, in any event, without merit, because the challenged portions of the summation were fair responses to defense arguments (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399).
Defendant's claim concerning lost Rosario material is unpreserved, due to his failure to request any sanction, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.