Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the testimony of a gas station attendant regarding the defendant's demand that he turn over all his money, occurring just prior to the defendant's actual theft of moneys held by the attendant's co-worker, was properly admitted because it was both necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the crime charged (see, People v. Cook, 42 N.Y.2d 204; People v. Catala, 198 A.D.2d 293), and was inextricably interwoven with the description of the events depicted (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350; People v. Catala, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836; People v. Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 996). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.