Opinion
March 20, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J).
Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine him concerning the four Family Court orders of protection issued against him in favor of the decedent. This evidence was relevant to the defendant's intent and motive, as well as to rebut the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see, People v. Linton, 166 A.D.2d 670). Moreover, we note that any potential prejudice to the defendant was mitigated by the trial court's instructions to the jury.
Furthermore, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 without a hearing. Since the record and the submissions, viewed in the totality of the circumstances of the case, established that counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation, a hearing was unnecessary (see, People v. Herrera, 197 A.D.2d 706). Lawrence, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.