Opinion
November 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review her contention that the hearing court erred by denying suppression of the drugs and the gun that were recovered from the automobile in which she was seated at the time of the commission of the crime and her arrest (see, People v Manuli, 156 A.D.2d 388; People v Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, we find no error in the hearing court's conclusion that the arresting police officer had probable cause to search the automobile for evidence of the crime, contraband, or a weapon under the automobile exception to the search-warrant requirement (see, People v Galak, 81 N.Y.2d 463; People v Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673; People v Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49; People v Bonilla, 199 A.D.2d 519; People v Fulton, 189 A.D.2d 778).
Also unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant's contention that she was prejudiced by the admission into evidence, for background purposes, of testimony concerning so-called buy-and-bust operations (see, CPL 470.05; People v Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v Woney, 205 A.D.2d 480). In any event, the admission of this limited testimony was necessary to make the subject matter of a crime, intelligible to the jury, to describe the scene of the crime, and to explain a contested issue (see, People v Garcia, 196 A.D.2d 433, affd 83 N.Y.2d 817; People v Martinez, 179 A.D.2d 501; People v Almodovar, 178 A.D.2d 133; People v Ellsworth, 176 A.D.2d 127; People v Tucker, 102 A.D.2d 535).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.