Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the facts of this case the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request to produce the confidential informant because the informant's participation in the transactions was minimal (see, People v Lozada, 104 A.D.2d 663). Inasmuch as the People were not obligated to produce the confidential informant, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant's request for a missing witness charge in regard to the confidential informant (cf., People v Dianda, 70 N.Y.2d 894; People v McAvoy, 142 A.D.2d 605, 606).
We also find that the examples used by the court during its supplemental charge on entrapment were intended to illustrate the concepts of that defense and were not prejudicial to the defendant (see, People v Lilly, 139 A.D.2d 671, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 862). Lastly, the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Eiber, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.