We find that the probative value of the complaining witness' testimony that he saw defendant pass "some vials", which he surmised contained a "substance", thereby implying defendant's commission of an uncharged crime, outweighed any possible prejudice to the defendant. Since identification of the defendant was based solely upon the testimony of the complaining witness and was the crucial issue in the case, the precise circumstances under which his observation took place were clearly significant as background evidence in that they explained why he took particular notice of defendant (see, People v Vega, 169 A.D.2d 586).
A photograph of defendant was properly admitted into evidence after the witness' in-court identification to demonstrate that defendant had changed his appearance since the time of his arrest, which could otherwise have affected the jury's ability to consider whether the complaining witness' description had been accurate (see, People v Larry, 178 A.D.2d 282, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1003). The court immediately addressed defendant's objection to the brief, unsolicited mention by the complaining witness which could have implied that there had been a prior photographic identification by instructing the jury to ignore the comment, thereby dispelling any possible prejudice (see, People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.