Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting the provision that certain of the sentences shall run consecutively and substituting therefor a provision that all of the sentences shall run concurrently to one another; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant asserts that the trial court's admission of evidence, including a tape recording, of a telephone conversation that he had with an undercover police officer after the first but prior to the second sale of cocaine to the officer was reversible error. However, it is apparent from the record that the second sale was the product of ongoing bargaining between the defendant and the undercover officer, and thus, evidence with respect to the conversation was inextricably interwoven with the entire transaction and served to complete the narrative of the episode (see, People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364; People v. Hardwick, 140 A.D.2d 624; People v. Ricotta, 117 A.D.2d 682; see also, People v Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932). Indeed, the evidence not only was necessary to understand the officer's subsequent testimony with respect to the second sale (cf., People v. Crandall, 67 N.Y.2d 111), but was also probative of the defendant's intent in view of his defense that he was hired by the officer and a confidential informant to act out the part of a big-time drug seller (see, People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233). Moreover, any prejudicial effect of such evidence was carefully circumscribed by the court in its instructions to the jury (see, People v. Maggio, 137 A.D.2d 623). Thus, under these circumstances, the probative value of that evidence outweighed any potential prejudice that might have resulted from its admission (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350; People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264). Accordingly, the tape of the conversation in question, and testimony with respect thereto, was properly admitted into evidence by the trial court.
We find the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.