Opinion
October 27, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.)
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to elicit testimony regarding uncharged crimes consisting of other attempted robberies. The challenged testimony was relevant to the identification of the defendant ( see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350; People v. Keller, 215 A.D.2d 502; People v. Hazel, 203 A.D.2d 478), as a modus operandi was established ( see, People v Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241; People v. Jason, 190 A.D.2d 689).
Further, the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the silver gun allegedly used by the defendant is without merit, as the gun was sufficiently connected to him to be admissible ( see, People v. Sandy, 187 A.D.2d 466; People v. Dinkins, 139 A.D.2d 759, 760; People v. Cunningham, 116 A.D.2d 585, 586)
Lastly, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
O'Brien, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.