| People v Mendez |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00992 [70 AD3d 861] |
| February 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony Mendez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Kristina Sapaskis of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.),rendered May 11, 2007, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts),criminal contempt in the second degree (three counts), and aggravated harassment in the seconddegree (six counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the SupremeCourt, Queens County, for a new trial.
Evidence of uncharged crimes may properly be admitted "as relevant background material toenable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with the complainant and explain theissuance of an order of protection, and as evidence of the defendant's motive and intent in thecommission of the charged crimes" (People v Laverpool, 52 AD3d 622, 622 [2008]; see People vMolineux, 168 NY 264, 297-305 [1901]; People v Timmons, 54 AD3d 883, 885 [2008]; People v Farmer, 54 AD3d 871,872 [2008]; People v Howe, 292 AD2d 542, 542 [2002]).
Here, the evidence adduced at trial fit into these recognized exceptions to theMolineux rule (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]; People v Sayers, 64 AD3d 728[2009]). "In such cases, the court may admit the evidence in its discretion if its probative valueoutweighs the potential for prejudice, provided that the court gives a proper limiting instructionto the jury" (People v Wright, 288 AD2d 409, 410 [2001]; see People v Satiro,72 NY2d 821, 822 [1988]; People vPhipps, 50 AD3d 929, 930 [2008]; cf. People v Wilkinson,71 AD3d 249 [2010]).
However, the Supreme Court erred in failing to give proper limiting instructions (see People v Sayers, 64 AD3d 728[2009]; cf. People v Ross, 43 AD3d1434, 1435 [2007]; People v Brown, 249 AD2d 556, 557 [1998]). Moreover, itcannot be said that there was no significant probability that the erroneous instructionscontributed to the defendant's conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230,241-242 [1975]). Accordingly, a new trial is required. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ.,concur. [Prior Case History: 15 Misc 3d 1134(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50975(U).]