Opinion
03-15-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Elias RODRIGUEZ, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel; Brian Carroll on the brief), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Ayelet Sela of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel; Brian Carroll on the brief), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Ayelet Sela of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered June 13, 2014, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree and harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicit evidence of the defendant's prior misconduct involving the complainant and the complainant's son. The evidence was admissible to establish the defendant's intent and motive, and because it was relevant as background information to complete the narrative of the incident, and to help establish an element of the crimes charged in the indictment (see People v. Morris, 21 N.Y.3d 588, 597, 976 N.Y.S.2d 682, 999 N.E.2d 160 ; People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835, 837, 637 N.Y.S.2d 681, 661 N.E.2d 153 ; People v. Ingram, 71 N.Y.2d 474, 481, 527 N.Y.S.2d 363, 522 N.E.2d 439 ; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 243, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808 ; People v. Charles, 121 A.D.3d 802, 802–803, 993 N.Y.S.2d 758 ; People v. Wisdom, 120 A.D.3d 724, 725–726, 991 N.Y.S.2d 141 ; People v. Lleshi, 100 A.D.3d 780, 781, 953 N.Y.S.2d 674 ; People v. Wellcome, 70 A.D.3d 983, 983–984, 897 N.Y.S.2d 137 ; People v. Rock, 65 A.D.3d 558, 558–559, 882 N.Y.S.2d 907 ; see generally People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59 ; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286 ). Furthermore, the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, which the court minimized by giving the jury limiting instructions (see People v. Morris, 21 N.Y.3d at 598, 976 N.Y.S.2d 682, 999 N.E.2d 160 ; People v. Tosca, 98 N.Y.2d 660, 661, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014 ; People v. Sheehan, 105 A.D.3d 873, 875, 963 N.Y.S.2d 309 ; People v. Yusuf, 104 A.D.3d 881, 883, 961 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; People v. James, 19 A.D.3d 616, 616, 797 N.Y.S.2d 129 ).
MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, COHEN and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.