Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that in this case, where a single sale of narcotics was charged, the trial court erred in admitting into evidence $98 in cash, which was recovered from one of his accomplices. We agree. The prejudicial effect of the admission into evidence of the money, which seemed to suggest that the defendant and the accomplices had engaged in other, uncharged narcotics sales, clearly outweighed whatever probative value it may have had (see, People v Berry, 182 A.D.2d 824; People v Valderama, 161 A.D.2d 820; People v Morales, 133 A.D.2d 90; People v Brown, 71 A.D.2d 918; People v Jones, 62 A.D.2d 356). However, this error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and there is no significant probability that but for this error the defendant would have been acquitted (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Berry, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, CPL 470.05; People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v Robles, 110 A.D.2d 916, affd 65 N.Y.2d 1045; People v Ocasio, 47 N.Y.2d 55; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.