Opinion
2014-06-11
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Albert CROOKS, appellant.
Gerald Zuckerman, Ossining, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Michael P. Rubin, Laurie G. Sapakoff, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Gerald Zuckerman, Ossining, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Michael P. Rubin, Laurie G. Sapakoff, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered October 2, 2012, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Molineuxruling ( see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286) was a provident exercise of its discretion. The evidence of prior incidents of assaultive behavior by the defendant against his mother, who was the victim in the instant case, was properly ruled admissible.It was probative of the defendant's intent to assault his mother, and also provided background information necessary to explain the tumultuous and acrimonious relationship between the defendant and his mother ( see People v. Alnutt, 107 A.D.3d 1139, 1142, 968 N.Y.S.2d 634;People v. Laverpool, 267 A.D.2d 93, 94, 700 N.Y.S.2d 139;People v. O'Gara, 239 A.D.2d 215, 657 N.Y.S.2d 661). The trial court properly balanced the probative value of such evidence against its prejudicial effect ( see People v. Alnutt, 107 A.D.3d at 1142, 968 N.Y.S.2d 634;People v. Blond, 96 A.D.3d 1149, 1150, 946 N.Y.S.2d 663).
The trial court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) was also a provident exercise of its discretion. The defendant's prior convictions were relevant to the issue of his credibility because they demonstrated his willingness to deliberately further his self-interest at the expense of society ( see People v. Seymour, 77 A.D.3d 976, 978, 910 N.Y.S.2d 487;People v. Taylor, 18 A.D.3d 783, 784, 794 N.Y.S.2d 919;People v. Waltower, 270 A.D.2d 435, 705 N.Y.S.2d 256). The fact that the prior convictions were similar in nature to the crimes presently charged did not warrant their preclusion ( see People v. Hicks, 84 A.D.3d 1402, 924 N.Y.S.2d 551;People v. Fotiou, 39 A.D.3d 877, 878, 834 N.Y.S.2d 319;People v. Lewis, 31 A.D.3d 788, 789, 818 N.Y.S.2d 615). Nor did the fact that the oldest conviction occurred 10 years before the instant offenses require preclusion of that conviction for impeachment purposes ( see People v. Haugh, 84 A.D.3d 1401, 923 N.Y.S.2d 891;People v. Fotiou, 39 A.D.3d at 878, 834 N.Y.S.2d 319). The defendant failed to demonstrate that the prejudicial effect of admitting the prior convictions would so outweigh their probative worth with respect to the issue of credibility as to warrant their exclusion ( see People v. Vetrano, 88 A.D.3d 750, 930 N.Y.S.2d 275;People v. Tyrell, 67 A.D.3d 827, 828, 888 N.Y.S.2d 610;People v. Williams, 49 A.D.3d 672, 854 N.Y.S.2d 152). The trial court's ruling struck a proper balance between the probative value of the evidence and the possible prejudice to the defendant ( see People v. Hayes, 44 A.D.3d 683, 843 N.Y.S.2d 175;People v. Hallingquest, 295 A.D.2d 364, 742 N.Y.S.2d 919).
The defendant's contention concerning the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise the specific contention he now raises on appeal when making his motion for a trial order of dismissal ( see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Middleton, 52 A.D.3d 533, 860 N.Y.S.2d 553;People v. Raffaele, 41 A.D.3d 869, 841 N.Y.S.2d 311). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). RIVERA, J.P., SGROI, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.