Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of his right of confrontation when a police detective testified concerning statements made by a man seen with the defendant just prior to the shooting (see, US Const 6th Amend; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400). However, the defendant did not object to this testimony, elicited on redirect examination, which merely expounded on an issue introduced by the defendant on cross-examination. In any event, the proof of guilt, which includes the defendant's admission to his paramour and the identification of the defendant by a police officer and another eyewitness, is overwhelming (see, People v. Sheffield, 118 A.D.2d 882, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 773) and we find no reasonable possibility that the admission of the now-challenged testimony contributed to the defendant's conviction. Thus, any error in the admission of the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237).
The defendant's sentence was not harsh or excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be both meritless and unpreserved for appellate review. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.