Opinion
July 15, 1994
Appeal from the Erie County Court, Drury, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that the proof of intent to harm one of two victims is legally insufficient (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The fact that a different inference may be drawn from the proof in this case does not mandate reversal (see, People v Castillo, 47 N.Y.2d 270, 277-278; People v. Reynolds, 107 A.D.2d 724). We also reject the contention that the court erred in permitting testimony regarding defendant's prior possession of a weapon resembling the weapon used in the crime. Contrary to defendant's contention, identity of the perpetrator was at issue, and the court properly determined that the probative value of that testimony outweighed the prejudice to defendant (see, People v. Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241; People v. Widger, 126 A.D.2d 962, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1011; see generally, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention concerning the imposition of consecutive sentences and find it to be without merit.