| People v Crooks |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04212 [118 AD3d 816] |
| June 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Albert Crooks, Appellant. |
Gerald Zuckerman, Ossining, N.Y., for appellant.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Michael P. Rubin, Laurie G.Sapakoff, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered October 2, 2012, convicting him of assault in the first degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Molineux ruling (see People v Molineux, 168 NY264 [1901]) was a provident exercise of its discretion. The evidence of prior incidents ofassaultive behavior by the defendant against his mother, who was the victim in theinstant case, was properly ruled admissible. It was probative of the defendant's intent toassault his mother, and also provided background information necessary to explain thetumultuous and acrimonious relationship between the defendant and his mother (see People v Alnutt, 107 AD3d1139, 1142 [2013]; People v Laverpool, 267 AD2d 93, 94 [1999];People v O'Gara, 239 AD2d 215 [1997]). The trial court properly balanced theprobative value of such evidence against its prejudicial effect (see People vAlnutt, 107 AD3d at 1142; People v Blond, 96 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2012]).
The trial court's Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d371 [1974]) was also a provident exercise of its discretion. The defendant's priorconvictions were relevant to the issue of his credibility because they demonstrated hiswillingness to deliberately further his self-interest at the expense of society (see People v Seymour, 77AD3d 976, 978 [2010]; People v Taylor, 18 AD3d 783, 784 [2005]; People vWaltower, 270 AD2d 435 [2000]). The fact that the prior convictions were similar innature to the crimes presently charged did not warrant their preclusion (see People v Hicks, 84 AD3d1402 [2011]; People vFotiou, 39 AD3d 877, 878 [2007]; People v Lewis, 31 AD3d 788, 789 [2006]). Nor did thefact that the oldest conviction occurred 10 years before the instant offenses requirepreclusion of that conviction for impeachment purposes (see People v Haugh, 84 AD3d1401 [2011]; People v Fotiou, 39 AD3d at 878). The defendant failed todemonstrate that the prejudicial effect of admitting the prior convictions would sooutweigh their probative worth with respect to the issue of credibility as to warrant theirexclusion (see People vVetrano, 88 AD3d 750 [2011]; People v Tyrell, 67 AD3d 827, 828 [2009]; People v Williams, 49 AD3d672 [2008]). The trial court's ruling struck a proper balance between the probativevalue of the evidence and the possible prejudice to the defendant (see People v Hayes, 44 AD3d683 [2007]; [*2]People v Hallingquest, 295AD2d 364 [2002]).
The defendant's contention concerning the legal sufficiency of the evidence isunpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise the specific contention he nowraises on appeal when making his motion for a trial order of dismissal (see People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Middleton, 52 AD3d 533 [2008]; People v Raffaele, 41 AD3d869 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to thePeople (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), the evidence was legallysufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, uponour independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict ofguilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.