Opinion
February 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the testimony of a gas station attendant regarding the defendant's demand that he turn over all his money, occurring just prior to the defendant's actual theft of moneys held by the attendant's co-worker, was properly admitted because it was both necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the crime charged (see, People v. Cook, 42 N.Y.2d 204; People v. Catala, 198 A.D.2d 293), and was inextricably interwoven with the description of the events depicted (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350; People v. Catala, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836; People v. Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 996). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.