Defendant, and two accomplices who testified for the People at trial, attempted to collect drug money from three women who sold crack on behalf of defendant. When unsuccessful in the collection of the receipts, defendant beat each of the three women, and ransacked their respective rooms. In the third room, after having threatening to do so, he set fire to the bed, which then spread.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), defendant's guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. We find no basis to disturb the jury's findings of credibility with respect to each of the People's witnesses (supra). Nor was the evidence of defendant's drug dealing activities introduced solely to establish defendant's criminal propensity (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233); rather, this evidence was relevant to defendant's motive (People v. Mees, 47 N.Y.2d 997, 998; People v. Mollineux, 168 N.Y. 264). The potential for undue prejudice did not outweigh its probative value (People v. Hardwick, 140 A.D.2d 624, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 957) and it also provided narrative information which explained defendant's conduct. We presume that the jury followed the court's limiting instructions. (See generally, People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102.)
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for review as a matter of law. Were we to review them in the interest of justice we would find them to be without merit.
We find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305-306).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.