| People v Farmer |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07006 [54 AD3d 871] |
| September 16, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Charles Farmer, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anne C. Feigus, andMichael J. Balch of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Brennan, J.), both rendered February 23, 2004, convicting him of criminal contempt in the firstdegree (13 counts) under indictment No. 3190/02, and criminal contempt in the first degree (5counts) under indictment No. 804/03, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicitevidence of the defendant's prior bad acts involving the complainant. The evidence was properlyadmitted as relevant background material to enable the jury to understand the defendant'srelationship with the complainant, to explain the issuance of an order of protection against thedefendant, to establish the defendant's motive in the commission of the crimes, and to establishthe complainant's state of mind (seePeople v Marji, 43 AD3d 961 [2007]; People v Melendez, 8 AD3d 680, 681 [2004]; People vLawrence, 297 AD2d 290, 291 [2002]; People v Howe, 292 AD2d 542 [2002];see generally People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 [1981]; People v Molineux,168 NY 264 [1901]). The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to a fairtrial because the trial court failed to issue a limiting instruction with regard to the limited purposefor which this evidence was introduced is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline toreview it in the exercise [*2]of our interest of justice jurisdiction(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vOlibencia, 45 AD3d 607, 609 [2007]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he received meaningful representation (see People v Orcutt, 49 AD3d1082 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 938 [2008]; see also People v Benevento,91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Santucci, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.