Opinion
November 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the court erred in admitting limited testimony concerning the general practices of drug dealers since this testimony was necessary to make the subject matter of the crime intelligible to the jury, to describe the scene of the incident, and to establish or explain a material fact or a contested issue (see, People v Garcia, 196 A.D.2d 433, affd 83 N.Y.2d 817; People v Almodovar, 178 A.D.2d 133; People v Ellsworth, 176 A.D.2d 127; People v Polanco, 169 A.D.2d 551; People v Jones, 138 A.D.2d 405; People v Tucker, 102 A.D.2d 535).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.