Opinion
December 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court correctly determined that evidence that the defendant's accomplices took property from persons other than the complainant during the crimes for which the defendant was charged was relevant to establish the defendant's identity as the perpetrator and to complete the narrative of events (see generally, People v Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932; People v Hazel, 203 A.D.2d 478). Any error concerning the trial court's failure to give a limiting instruction regarding this evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 996, 998; People v Silva, 187 A.D.2d 467, 468) and, in any event, does not warrant reversal in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Jones, 182 A.D.2d 708, 709; People v Lenoir, 178 A.D.2d 552).
We find that the defendant's presence at the precharge conference, which concerned only questions of law, was not required (see, People v Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469; People v Ramos, 173 A.D.2d 748).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.