Opinion
August 28, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in allowing testimony about a previous confrontation between the defendant and his friends and the victims. The People's application to admit the testimony was not untimely and the probative value of the testimony outweighed any prejudicial effect (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350). Although it would have been better practice to caution the jury on the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted, both at the time it was introduced and again during the charge, the defendant did not request a limiting instruction when the testimony was admitted, and the court adequately instructed the jury as to its limited purpose in the charge (see, People v. Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 996).
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.