| People v Gardner |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06362 [98 AD3d 901] |
| September 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronald Gardner, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Brian R. Pouliot of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered December14, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny,criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and possession of burglar's tools, andsentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 3 to 6 years, unanimouslyaffirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the People to introduce threetrespass notices pertaining to prior shoplifting incidents in order to establish that defendant knewhe was legally prohibited from entering Macy's stores. Defendant failed to preserve his specificcontention that a single notice would have sufficed to prove defendant's knowledge of thatprohibition, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, wealso reject it on the merits. The number of notices was highly probative of defendant's awarenessof the prohibition, particularly since defense counsel had indicated that this would be a contestedissue (see People v Cox, 63 AD3d626 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 859 [2009]). The probative value of thenotices outweighed any potential prejudice, which the court minimized by way of thoroughlimiting instructions (see People vCornelius, 89 AD3d 595 [1st Dept 2011], lv granted 18 NY3d 993 [2012]). Inany event, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.Defendant's remaining arguments regarding the trespass notices are likewise unpreserved andwithout merit.
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a properexercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). The court properlypermitted limited inquiry into two prior convictions, which constituted a small portion ofdefendant's extensive [*2]record. These convictions wereprobative of defendant's credibility and were not unduly prejudicial, notwithstanding anyresemblance to the instant offense.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Acosta,Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels and Rom�n, JJ.