Defendant's other contentions are equally unpersuasive. Although we agree that the prosecutor improperly asked defendant during cross-examination to explain the testimony of the People's witnesses ( see People v. Hubert, 237 AD2d 756, 758, lv denied 90 NY2d 859), such error was harmless in view of the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt and the charge to the jury regarding the credibility of witnesses and burden of proof ( see id. at 758; People v. Ely, 164 AD2d 442, 446, lv denied 77 NY2d 905; People v. Montgomery, 103 AD2d 622, 623). Likewise, the prosecutor's description of defendant as a convicted felon during summation is improper since it is an attempt to convey to the jury defendant's guilt of other crimes not presently in issue ( see People v. Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110). Given defendant's objection thereto and Supreme Court's prompt curative instruction with respect to this issue, however, there is no showing that the jury was in any way prejudiced ( see People v. Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 820).
We disagree. Two indictments based upon separate criminal transactions may be joined, in the trial court's discretion, when evidence of a crime charged in one indictment is material and admissible as evidence of a crime charged in the second (see CPL 200.20 [b]; [4];People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 8). Here, evidence that defendant committed the burglary was clearly admissible to establish his motive for later resisting arrest (see People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835, 837;People v. Hubert, 237 A.D.2d 756, 757, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 859), a sufficient basis for joinder of the two indictments. Since defendant failed to make a convincing showing of prejudice due to County Court's consolidation of the indictments, we see no abuse of discretion (see People v. Lane, supra at 8-9; People v. Beverly, 277 A.D.2d 718, 719, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 780).
Where "a single, substantial error by counsel so seriously compromises a defendant's right to a fair trial, it will qualify as ineffective representation" (People v. Hobot, supra, at 1022). In addition, defense counsel did not object to those portions of the People's summation where the prosecutor referred to defendant's involvement with uncharged crimes and inferred that he believed that defendant was guilty (see, People v. Simmons, 110 A.D.2d 666, 667), or to the People's cross-examination of defendant, which improperly required defendant to characterize the People's witnesses as liars (see, People v. Hubert, 237 A.D.2d 756, 758, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 859). Notable as well is the fact that although County Court granted defendant's applications for Wade and Huntley hearings, it does not appear that these hearings were ever held.
She stated that she attempted to return many of the gifts and that, on one occasion when he became upset with her, he sent her a letter using the same language later written on her van. It is well settled that evidence of prior uncharged crimes is admissible, not for the purpose of establishing the defendant's propensity to engage in criminal conduct, but for the purpose of demonstrating identity, motive or intent ( see, People v. Muniz, 248 A.D.2d 644, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 857; People v. Flowers, 245 A.D.2d 1088, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 972; People v. Hubert, 237 A.D.2d 756, 757, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 859). Under the circumstances presented here, we agree with County Court that the probative value of the above evidence clearly outweighed its prejudicial effect ( see, People v. Chase, 85 N.Y.2d 493, 502; People v. Greene, 252 A.D.2d 748, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 925) and was germane to establishing defendant's identity, motive and intent. Accordingly, we find no error in the court's ruling.
It is well settled that where evidence of a prior uncharged crime contains more probative value than risk of prejudice to a defendant, the evidence is admissible ( see, People v. Chase, 85 N.Y.2d 493, 502). In this instance, the challenged evidence was admissible as it was relevant to establish intent and to rebut defendant's claim that he was legally insane at the time of the crime ( see, People v. Santarelli, 49 N.Y.2d 241, 248; People v. Hubert, 237 A.D.2d 756, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 859). After defendant rested, a juror informed County Court that she had heard a fellow juror say "let's find this guy guilty and let's go home".