Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that certain testimony was improperly admitted because it permitted the jury to speculate that he had been involved in uncharged, unspecified criminal conduct. We disagree. Testimony as to uncharged, unconnected criminal conduct is admissible, inter alia, to establish that two perpetrators were acting in concert (see, People v. Jackson, 39 N.Y.2d 64, 68; cf., People v. Kay, 120 A.D.2d 615, 616). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in permitting the testimony since it established a relationship between the defendant and his codefendant, Michael Peoples. Bracken, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.