Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant engaged in two separate drug transactions with an undercover police officer. A second police officer videotaped the second transaction. During the second transaction, the defendant engaged in another drug transaction with a bicyclist, for which he had not been charged. The videotape captured the transaction with the bicyclist and both police officers testified that they witnessed this transaction. The prosecutor referred to the transaction with the bicyclist in her opening, and again in her summation, when she used the bicyclist's transaction to refute the defendant's agency defense. The defendant now claims that the admission of the uncharged transaction with the bicyclist constituted reversible error.
We note that the defendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v Cody, 149 A.D.2d 722; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v Mayo, 136 A.D.2d 748). In any event, the transaction with the bicyclist was inextricably interwoven with the crime charged, and was also necessary to complete the narrative of both police officers' testimony (see, People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364; People v. Leach, 196 A.D.2d 508; People v. Foy, 176 A.D.2d 893; People v Henry, 166 A.D.2d 720). Moreover, the probative value of this evidence was greater than any possible prejudice, as this evidence, although presented during the People's direct case, would have been admissible to rebut the agency defense which was asserted by the defendant (see, People v. Randall, 177 A.D.2d 661; People v. Gonzalez, 175 A.D.2d 179). Similarly, we find that the prosecutor's summation comments constituted a fair comment on the defendant's agency defense (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105). Nor do we find that the prosecutor's opening remarks constituted error (see, People v. Kurtz, 51 N.Y.2d 380, cert denied 451 U.S. 911; People v. Tzatzimakis, 150 A.D.2d 512).
While the prosecutor should have obtained a ruling from the trial court regarding the admissibility of the uncharged drug transaction before this evidence was introduced into the case (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350), the error was harmless as this evidence was admissible in any event, and because the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Rios, 183 A.D.2d 734). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.