Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not err in allowing testimony regarding the defendant's prior drug activities. The witnesses' prior dealings with the defendant in the purchase of drugs formed the basis for their identification of the defendant at trial (see, People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. Jamerson, 119 A.D.2d 588), and proper limiting instructions were given as to the purpose of the testimony (cf., People v. Guzman, 146 A.D.2d 799, 800).
In addition, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the prosecution to confer with a witness during the course of the witness's direct testimony (see, Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 281-285; People v. Narayan, 58 N.Y.2d 904, 906). The conference did not constitute an improper impeachment of the witness (CPL 60.35), and by allowing the defendant to cross-examine the witness regarding the substance of the conference, the trial court preserved the defendant's right to confrontation (see, United States v. Bazzano, 570 F.2d 1120, 1127, cert denied 436 U.S. 917).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.