Opinion
May 15, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's claim, uncharged crimes were not introduced into evidence in violation of People v Molineux ( 168 N.Y. 264). Instead, the People asked a police officer to explain why he drove the complainant in a certain direction after the complainant had been robbed, in order to elicit background information concerning events prior to the defendant's arrest to complete the narration and avoid jury speculation (see, People v Byrd, 187 A.D.2d 724; People v Burrus, 182 A.D.2d 634).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Jones, 55 N.Y.2d 771, 773; People v Lozada, 181 A.D.2d 430; People v Brown, 167 A.D.2d 346, 347) or refer to errors which are harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and the court's charge (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242; People v DeFigueroa, 182 A.D.2d 772, 773; People v Perry, 172 A.D.2d 858; People v Valerio, 167 A.D.2d 439, 440; People v Jackson, 127 A.D.2d 696, 697).
The defendant's sentence is neither harsh nor excessive (People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Copertino, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.