Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting the police witnesses to testify as to the substance of the radio communication made by the undercover police officer which included a description of the individual from whom she had purchased the drugs, and in further permitting them to testify that the defendant matched that description. This testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay which impermissibly bolstered the identification testimony of the arresting officer (see, People v Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819, 821; People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471, 477; People v Soto, 146 A.D.2d 657; People v Faison, 126 A.D.2d 739; cf., People v Love, 92 A.D.2d 551; People v Fay, 85 A.D.2d 512). However, the error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. Significantly, in our view the defense was not one of misidentification; rather, the defendant contended that he had not sold drugs to the police (cf., People v Vasquez, 120 A.D.2d 757).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit (see, People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940; People v Best, 145 A.D.2d 499; People v Wallace, 153 A.D.2d 766). Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.