Judgment affirmed.
The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence certain testimony tending to establish the crime of larceny, an offense not charged in the indictment. We disagree. Initially, we note that no objection was raised during trial to the admission of this testimony and the issue has not, therefore, been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, we find that the champagne theft, the event which immediately preceded and precipitated the incident which is the subject of the case at bar, was inextricably interwoven with the subsequent events culminating in the defendant's arrest. The trial court, therefore, properly admitted the testimony concerning the theft in order that a complete narrative of the criminal transaction charged be presented (see, People v. Gantz, 104 A.D.2d 692; People v. Hop Sing, 216 App. Div. 404, 405). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.