Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly allowed the prosecutor to elicit testimony relating to suspected check fraud and a related 911 emergency telephone call. The challenged evidence was properly admitted to provide background information as to why the police pursued and confronted the defendant ( see People v. Tosca, 98 N.Y.2d 660, 661, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014; People v. Morris, 89 A.D.3d 1112, 933 N.Y.S.2d 598, affd.21 N.Y.3d 588, 976 N.Y.S.2d 682, 999 N.E.2d 160; People v. Johnson, 76 A.D.3d 1103, 1104, 908 N.Y.S.2d 247; People v. Jenkins, 49 A.D.3d 780, 853 N.Y.S.2d 629). Moreover, the County Court alleviated any potential prejudice to the defendant by properly instructing the jury as to the limited purpose of the evidence ( see People v. Tosca, 98 N.Y.2d at 661, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014; People v. Morris, 89 A.D.3d at 1113, 933 N.Y.S.2d 598; People v. Holden, 82 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 918 N.Y.S.2d 773). The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly allowed the prosecutor to elicit testimony relating to suspected check fraud and a related 911 emergency telephone call. The challenged evidence was properly admitted to provide background information as to why the police pursued and confronted the defendant (see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660, 661; People v Morris, 89 AD3d 1112, affd 21 NY3d 588; People v Johnson, 76 AD3d 1103, 1104; People v Jenkins, 49 AD3d 780). Moreover, the County Court alleviated any potential prejudice to the defendant by properly instructing the jury as to the limited purpose of the evidence (see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d at 661; People v Morris, 89 AD3d at 1113; People v Holden, 82 AD3d 1007, 1008). The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
He was sentenced to a determinate prison term of five years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision.Defendant appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction (89 A.D.3d 1112, 933 N.Y.S.2d 598 [2d Dept.2011] ). Citing our decisions in Tosca and Resek, the Appellate Division held that the trial court's admission of the 911 evidence did not deprive defendant of a fair trial because that evidence was properly admitted to provide background information, had a greater probative value than prejudicial effect, and was accompanied by several limiting instructions (see id. at 1112–1113, 933 N.Y.S.2d 598 ). Defendant now appeals pursuant to leave granted by a Judge of this Court (19 N.Y.3d 964, 950 N.Y.S.2d 116, 973 N.E.2d 214 [2012] ), and we now affirm.II
20[2]; People v. Latimer, 24 A.D.3d 807, 804 N.Y.S.2d 493). Further, evidence of uncharged crimes committed by the defendant and his codefendants, and prior statements or acts of animosity or hostility, were properly admitted under the circumstances of this case, to complete the narrative of the events, provide background material, and as evidence of motive or state of mind with respect to the crimes charged ( see People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835, 837, 637 N.Y.S.2d 681, 661 N.E.2d 153;People v. Morris, 89 A.D.3d 1112, 1113, 933 N.Y.S.2d 598,lv. granted19 N.Y.3d 964, 950 N.Y.S.2d 116, 973 N.E.2d 214;People v. Mena, 71 A.D.3d 475, 476, 897 N.Y.S.2d 57;People v. Alas, 44 A.D.3d 534, 843 N.Y.S.2d 628). The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendant from presenting, for impeachment purposes, extrinsic evidence of a prosecution witness's prior statements to law enforcement officials, which omitted references to epithets against Hispanics ( see People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80, 412 N.Y.S.2d 833, 385 N.E.2d 572,cert. denied442 U.S. 910, 99 S.Ct. 2823, 61 L.Ed.2d 275). The witness did not deny making those statements; rather, he explained the discrepancies by claiming that his statements to the police were made in the early hours of the morning, just after he was notified of the death of his friend.