| People v Crichlow |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09933 [79 AD3d 1144] |
| December 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KevinCrichlow, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Lori Glachman, andAdam Koelsch of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.),rendered June 17, 2008, convicting him of arson in the second degree and criminal mischief inthe fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in allowing the People to elicit testimony from police officers that a warrant existed forthe defendant's arrest and that the officers were present at the defendant's apartment on the dateof the incident to execute that warrant. This limited testimony, which did not include anyunderlying information regarding the issuance of the warrant itself, and was coupled with properlimiting instructions, was relevant to establish the defendant's motive for committing the crimesof which he was convicted. The testimony also was necessary to provide background informationestablishing the basis for the officers' actions, and was more probative than prejudicial (seePeople v Jenkins, 49 AD3d 780 [2008]; People v McMurray, 271 AD2d 460 [2000];People v Robinson, 200 AD2d 693, 694 [1994]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Covello, J.P., Eng, Chambers andHall, JJ., concur.