Opinion
May 2, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.).
Defendant's claim that the trial court's Sandoval ruling and the ensuing cross-examination and summation remarks by the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial, by highlighting the similarity in location between a prior sale and the instant sale, is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law ( People v Michalek, 82 N.Y.2d 906), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
The brief and limited background testimony by an undercover officer concerning his experiences does not warrant reversal of this conviction ( People v. Vargas, 213 A.D.2d 258, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 742).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing despite defendant's advanced age, in light of his lengthy criminal history, which includes numerous drug-related felony convictions ( compare, People v. Ostrow, 165 A.D.2d 719).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.