Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that evidence of an uncharged crime was improperly admitted into evidence when an undercover police officer testified that while he was buying narcotics from the defendant, an unknown man interrupted the sale and made a drug purchase from the defendant. However, we find that the evidence was properly admitted as directly probative of the defendant's intent to sell the additional heroin he possessed at the time of his arrest (see, People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v Green, 170 A.D.2d 530, 530-531; People v Graham, 168 A.D.2d 632, 633; cf., People v Caviness, 170 A.D.2d 615, 616).
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim regarding the court's failure to give a limiting instruction, as he neither requested such an instruction nor objected to the charge as given (see, CPL 470.05; People v Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 996, 998; People v Smith, 163 A.D.2d 432, 434; People v Rios, 183 A.D.2d 734). In any event, although the trial court erred in this respect (see, People v Williams, supra, at 998; People v Smith, supra, at 434), we nevertheless conclude that its failure to give a limiting instruction was harmless (see, People v Rosado, 79 A.D.2d 666), in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, which included the strong identification evidence of the undercover officer, who had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the transaction.
We find that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Eiber, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.