Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, 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 the defendant's return to the complainant's house after he had committed the crimes for which he was being tried, breaking down the complainant's door, and stealing the complainant's car. The challenged questioning was relevant to the complainant's identification of the defendant (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350; People v Hazel, 203 A.D.2d 478). Additionally, the trial court provided the jury with appropriate limiting instructions regarding the defendant's uncharged crimes (see, People v Davis, 169 A.D.2d 774).
The defendant's contention that his counsel was ineffective is without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.