| People v Jean-Louis |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05421 [74 AD3d 1093] |
| June 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rodney Jean-Louis, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, andSeth M. Lieberman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal,J.), rendered January 9, 2008, convicting him of resisting arrest and criminal contempt in thesecond degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his case was properly transferred from CriminalCourt to the Domestic Violence part of the Supreme Court for trial under a misdemeanorinformation (see People v Correa, 15 NY3d 213 [2010]).
"The nature and extent of cross-examination have always been subject to the sounddiscretion of the trial judge" (People vSpringer, 13 AD3d 657, 658 [2004]; see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 374[1974]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, in fashioning its Sandoval ruling (seePeople v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), the trial court "struck an appropriate balancebetween the probative value of the defendant's prior crimes and the possible prejudice to thedefendant" (People v Townsend, 70AD3d 982, 982 [2010]; see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]). In any event,any error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and nosignificant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
The trial court also ruled, pursuant to People v Molineux (168 NY 264 [1901]), thatevidence that the defendant punched a traffic officer in an unrelated incident would bepermissible to show intent for the purpose of proving that he resisted arrest (see PenalLaw § 205.30). We agree with the defendant that the evidence was not probative as towhether he intended to resist arrest and, therefore, should not have been ruled admissible (seePeople v Vargas, 88 NY2d 856, 858 [1996]). However, the error was harmless, as there wasoverwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the errorcontributed to his convictions (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Lott, JJ., concur.