Opinion
December 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence testimony concerning the defendant's previous arrest by the police officer who observed the defendant fleeing from the crime scene. The testimony was admissible to establish the identity of the defendant ( see, People v Hazel, 203 A.D.2d 478; People v Cain, 193 A.D.2d 810; People v Henry, 166 A.D.2d 720). The court's instructions limiting the use of this evidence mitigated any potential prejudice to the defendant ( see, People v Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294; People v Baez, 197 A.D.2d 527; People v Carver, 183 A.D.2d 907; People v Mulgrave, 163 A.D.2d 538).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.