| People v Nieves |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 04866 [186 AD3d 1260] |
| September 2, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Roberto Nieves, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Joyce Slevin, and AbedZ. Bhuyan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (RuthShillingford, J.), rendered January 12, 2016, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the firstdegree, rape in the second degree, criminal sexual act in the third degree, sexual abuse in thesecond degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 640-641 [2006]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicittestimony regarding the defendant's uncharged criminal behavior against the complainant, and inadmitting certain letters sent by the defendant to the complainant and/or her mother, because thisevidence provided relevant background information on the nature of the relationship between thedefendant and the complainant, placed the charged conduct in context, and was relevant to thedefendant's motive and intent (seePeople v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16, 19 [2009]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293[1901]; People v Stewart, 161 AD3d1108, 1108-1109 [2018]; People vBeer, 146 AD3d 895, 896 [2017]; People v Henderson, 142 AD3d 1104, 1105 [2016]; People v Fonseca, 121 AD3d 915,916 [2014]; People v Bermejo, 77AD3d 965, 965 [2010]). Furthermore, the probative value of the evidence outweighed therisk of prejudice to the defendant (seePeople v Frumusa, 29 NY3d 364, 373 [2017]; People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 560 [2012]; People v Henry, 173 AD3d 900,901 [2019]), and the court's limiting instruction to the jury served to alleviate any prejudice fromthe admission of that evidence (seePeople v Gross, 172 AD3d 741, 742 [2019]). Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Duffy,JJ., concur.