Opinion
March 28, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Berke, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant argues that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence of two prior uncharged bank robberies. We agree. Proof of these uncharged crimes was not probative of any element of the crimes charged and served only to establish the defendant's predisposition to commit the crimes charged (see, People v. Robinson, 68 N.Y.2d 541; People v Condon, 26 N.Y.2d 139). Contrary to the People's contention, the evidence that the defendant committed two bank robberies in the area on other occasions was not admissible to prove the identity of the perpetrator of the robbery in the instant case, since the modus operandi of the robberies was not so unique as to serve as proof that they were committed by the same person (see, People v Condon, supra, at 144; cf., People v. Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241; People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 47-48).
The admission of evidence of an uncharged crime on the issue of identity on less than clear and convincing proof of a unique modus operandi is error requiring reversal (see, People v Robinson, supra, at 550). Accordingly, a new trial is mandated. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.