| People v Rock |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06147 [65 AD3d 558] |
| August 4, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Edward Rock, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Andrea M.DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.),rendered November 17, 2006, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (twocounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicitevidence of the defendant's prior bad acts involving the complainant (see People vMolineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]). The evidence was properly admitted as relevant backgroundmaterial to enable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with the complainant, toexplain the issuance of an order of protection, to establish the defendant's motive in thecommission of the crimes, and to establish the complainant's state of mind (see People v Marji, 43 AD3d 961,961 [2007]; People v Melendez, 8AD3d 680, 681 [2004]; People v Lawrence, 297 AD2d 290, 291 [2002]; Peoplev Howe, 292 AD2d 542, 542 [2002]; see generally People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d350 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]). Moreover, the court's limitinginstruction to the jury that the evidence was only to be considered "as background informationand as to the issues of intent or motive," ensured that the probative value of the evidenceoutweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see People v Melendez, 8 AD3d at 681;People v Lawrence, 297 AD2d at 291).
The prosecutor's summation remarks were largely responsive to the defendant's summation(see People v Martinez, 58 AD3d754, 755 [2009]; People vRobinson, 8 AD3d 502 [2004]; People v [*2]ZhiQiang Li, 275 AD2d 803 [2000]). Insofar as any of the remarks were improper, they wereharmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]; People vRoopchand, 107 AD2d 35, 36 [1985]). Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, theprosecutor did not violate the trial court's Molineux ruling in eliciting certain testimonyfrom the complainant (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]; People v Timmons, 54 AD3d 883,885 [2008]; People v Anonymous, 275 AD2d 210, 212 [2000]).
The prosecutor exceeded the bounds of the trial court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 376 [1974]) by questioning the defendant regarding thenature of his conviction in 2005. Nonetheless, the prosecutor's misconduct was harmless sincethere was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and, in light of the defendant's promptand sustained objections to the improper questioning, there was no significant probability thatthe misconduct contributed to the defendant's conviction (see People v Berg, 59 NY2d294, 299-300 [1983]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 242; People v Benloss, 60 AD3d 686,686-687 [2009]; People v Gill, 54AD3d 965, 966 [2008]; People vDuggins, 1 AD3d 450, 451 [2003]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he received meaningful representation (seeStrickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 688 [1984]; see People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005]). Spolzino, J.P.,Skelos, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.