Opinion
October 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, once an employee of Hertz Corporation (hereinafter Hertz), stands convicted, inter alia, of falsifying business records in the first degree based upon his alteration of car rental agreements so that the amounts specified as due from customers were less than amounts the defendant actually collected on Hertz's behalf. The defendant claims that it was error for the trial court, following a Molineux hearing, to allow the introduction of evidence that he falsified agreements other than those which were the subject of the charges for which he was on trial. We disagree.
Although evidence of uncharged criminal conduct is inadmissible to demonstrate that the defendant had a propensity to commit the crime charged (People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293), such evidence is admissible where, as here, it tends to establish intent or the absence of mistake or accident (People v Molineux, supra), particularly where, as here, the charges concern equivocal acts from which the defendant's intent may not be easily inferred (see, People v Knox, 126 A.D.2d 748; see also, People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v Caruso, 135 A.D.2d 550; People v Iwaszkiewicz, 120 A.D.2d 746). We note, moreover, that the trial court appropriately minimized the prejudicial impact of the evidence of uncharged crimes by considerably limiting the number of previously altered rental agreements which could be introduced and by providing sufficient instructions to the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was being offered (see, People v Caruso, supra; see also, People v Sudler, 116 A.D.2d 605).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including his contention that the sentence was excessive, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, JJ., concur.