Opinion
March 15, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly permitted the People's witness to testify concerning a "business transaction" with the defendant on a streetcorner at 1:00 A.M. as it was probative on the issue of her identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the subject crime. Evidence of uncharged crimes may be used to prove identity ( see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; see also, People v. Branch, 191 A.D.2d 576, affd 83 N.Y.2d 663). Moreover, any prejudice to the defendant was obviated by the court's limiting instruction immediately after the witness testimony regarding this encounter ( see, People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 49; People v. Brown, 249 A.D.2d 556).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal.
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Goldstein, JJ., concur.