Opinion
570657/05.
Decided July 21, 2008.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered August 2, 2004, after a jury trial, convicting her of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.
PRESENT: Davis, J.P., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ.
Judgment of conviction (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J. and jury), rendered August 2, 2004, affirmed.
Defendant's present claim of error based upon the trial court's failure to give a limiting instruction with respect to purported uncharged crime evidence initially elicited by defense counsel on defendant's direct examination is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v De La Cruz, 44 AD3d 346, 347-348, lv denied 9 NY3d 1005), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The absence of a limiting instruction could not have caused any prejudice, where defendant made affirmative use of the evidence in support of her defense and in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt ( see People v Ward, 10 AD3d 805, 806-807, lv denied 4 NY3d 768).
Also unpreserved is defendant's objection to expert testimony concerning typical patterns of behavior exhibited by shoplifters, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no error in the admission of the limited expert testimony, which was relevant to issues presented at trial and not unduly prejudicial ( see generally People v Kennedy, 297 AD2d 330, lv denied 97 NY2d 684.
On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668). Trial counsel's failure to raise the issues suggested by defendant on appeal did not deprive defendant of meaningful representation.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.