Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
After observing the defendant exchange a glassine envelope for money with an unidentified male, Police Officer William Ryan chased and subsequently caught the defendant. As he was being tackled, the defendant threw a paper bag containing 32 glassine envelopes of heroin in the street under a parked car. The defendant now contends, inter alia, that it was error for the court to admit this testimony concerning the uncharged narcotics sale. We disagree.
The disputed testimony was relevant to establish the defendant's intent to sell the remaining glassine envelopes which were recovered in his possession (see, People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245; People v Marin, 157 A.D.2d 521). It also provided necessary background information and informed the jury of the events leading up to the defendant's arrest (see, People v Ortiz, 134 A.D.2d 624).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Viewed in its totality, the defense counsel's representation was meaningful (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Badia, 159 A.D.2d 577).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05), and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.