| People v Gousse |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10022 [57 AD3d 800] |
| December 16, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ReginaldGousse, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, andTerry-Ann Llewellyn of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), renderedSeptember 7, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the third degree (two counts) and criminalimpersonation in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, evidence of his prior conviction for robbery was properlyadmitted to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the instant crimes (see People v Ventimiglia,52 NY2d 350 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]). Here, a unique modusoperandi was sufficiently established, and the Supreme Court properly found that the similarity betweenthe crimes was probative of the defendant's identity (see People v Gousse, 43 AD3d 958 [2007]; People v Sanabria,266 AD2d 41 [1999]; People v Delarosa, 218 AD2d 667 [1995]). Given the court'slimiting instructions, the probative value of this evidence outweighed the potential prejudice to thedefendant (see People v Balazs, 258 AD2d 658 [1999]; People v Caban, 224 AD2d705 [1996]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence that he planned to rob a drug seller was improperlyadmitted because it was not sufficiently similar to the instant crimes is both waived and unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Molina, 241 AD2d 329 [1997];People v Wilson, 225 AD2d 642 [1996]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Eng and Chambers, JJ.,concur.