Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the police officers' testimony as to the substance of a radio run was inadmissible is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818). In any event, this claim is without merit because the substance of the radio run was introduced only as background evidence to explain why the police officers arrived at the scene and ran after the defendant (see, People v Casanova, 160 A.D.2d 394).
Nor was the defendant deprived of a fair trial by the fact that several of the prosecution's witnesses referred to him by his "street" names. Identification was an issue and those were the names by which the witnesses knew the defendant (see, People v Louis, 192 A.D.2d 558).
We also reject the defendant's contention that his sentence was unduly harsh and excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.