Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of evidence indicating that the victim had been working for him as a prostitute at the time of her death. While evidence of uncharged crimes is generally inadmissible if proffered solely to establish criminal propensity (see, People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233), it may be introduced to demonstrate, as it was in the instant case, the defendant's motive and intent to commit the crime charged (see, People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; see also, People v Ingram, 71 N.Y.2d 474; People v Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40), or to complete a witness' narrative to assist the jury in its comprehension of the crime (see, People v Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40; People v Mendez, 165 A.D.2d 751). Here, the court properly determined that the probative value of the challenged evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice (see, People v Alvino, supra). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Krausman, JJ., concur.