Opinion
May 3, 1999
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The complainant's testimony that the defendant had killed his son-in-law several years before he raped and sodomized her and that the defendant had previously exhibited abusive behavior towards her was properly admitted to establish her state of mind for the purpose of proving the forcible compulsion element of these crimes ( see, People v. Cook, 93 N.Y.2d 840; People v. George, 197 A.D.2d 588). We agree with the County Court that the probative value of this testimony outweighed its prejudicial effect ( see, People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520; see also, People v. Thompson, 158 A.D.2d 563).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; see also, People v. Davis, 238 A.D.2d 517).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) or without merit ( see, People v. Mathis, 150 A.D.2d 613; People v. Mehmedi, 69 N.Y.2d 759).
Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.