Issues similar to those raised by defendant concerning the sufficiency of the proof of intent to defraud were rejected by this Court on appeals from several of his codefendants, who also participated as employees of Mineral Resources Corp. in a "boiler room" set up for the sale of the metal tantalum through unsolicited, but carefully-timed and scripted, telephone calls and follow-up mailing of promotional materials ( see, People v Deangelis, 186 A.D.2d 397, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1026; People v Korsen, 167 A.D.2d 180, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 962; People v Salvage, 112 A.D.2d 59), and we perceive no significant difference in the proof adduced against defendant. On the contrary, the evidence against defendant, which showed his participation not only as a salesperson but also as a supervisor of other salespersons, and his use of his employer's sales method, if not its sales script, to cause a customer to feel a false sense of urgency about the supply of tantalum, was overwhelming, rendering harmless the prosecutor's outside-the-record summation reference to "the Hunt sizzle" ( People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.