Opinion
Submitted September 26, 2000
October 24, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered December 16, 1998, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (four counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, incest (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barbara Lerner of counsel), for appellant .
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano of counsel; Nora A. Colangelo on the brief), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Evidence of the defendant's prior misconduct toward the victim's mother was properly introduced into evidence. The challenged evidence was admissible because it was probative of the victim's state of mind and on the issue of delayed outcry. The probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Cook, 93 N.Y.2d 840; People v. Wright, 266 A.D.2d 414; People v. Gargano, 222 A.D.2d 694; People v. George, 197 A.D.2d 588; People v. Basir, 179 A.D.2d 662).
The defendant's contention that the court improperly failed to instruct the jury regarding the limited purpose of testimony of his prior misconduct is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). The defendant never requested such a limiting instruction. In any event, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85).