| People v Anderson |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06409 [120 AD3d 1548] |
| September 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vClifford C. Anderson, Appellant. |
Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua (John E. Tyo of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (James B. Ritts of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.),rendered December 19, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofcriminal contempt in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a juryverdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]).Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly admitted uncharged crimes asMolineux evidence on the People's direct case because that evidence was relevantto defendant's intent to violate the order of protection and was admissible " 'todevelop the necessary background and [to] complete the victim's narrative' " (People v Erle, 83 AD3d1442, 1444 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 794 [2011]; see People vAlvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]; People v Ray, 63 AD3d 1705, 1706 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 838 [2009]). We further conclude that the probative value of suchevidence outweighed any prejudice (see People v Carson, 4 AD3d 805, 806 [2004], lvdenied 2 NY3d 797 [2004]; see also Ray, 63 AD3d at 1706).
Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting such evidence, weconclude that the error is harmless. The evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming,and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but forthe error (see People vLaws, 27 AD3d 1116, 1117 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 758 [2006];see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J.,Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.