Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the defendant's involvement with drug dealers since such testimony was evidence of prior uncharged crimes and unfairly prejudicial. We find that the testimony was admissible because it was relevant to motive (see, People v. Jackman, 188 A.D.2d 550; People v. Clark, 167 A.D.2d 552, 552-553), and was necessary to complete the narrative of events (see, People v Berrios, 176 A.D.2d 547, 547-548; People v. Diaz, 122 A.D.2d 279). The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to give a limiting instruction when the evidence was admitted or during the final jury charge. This issue was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) and, we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
Finally, the defendant's sentence is not excessive. Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.