Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Evidence of the defendant's prior arrest for drug-related offenses was improperly admitted by the trial court under the identity and common-scheme-or-plan exceptions to the rule enunciated in People v Molineux ( 168 N.Y. 264). The defendant's identity was conclusively established at trial, and the method of committing the crime was not sufficiently unique to qualify as proof of a common scheme or plan (see, People v Ortiz, 156 A.D.2d 77; see generally, People v Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40). Accordingly, the prejudicial effect of the evidence of the defendant's prior arrest outweighed its probative value. However, under the facts of this case, we find that the error is harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the defendant was not deprived of his right to effectively cross-examine a police officer who testified at trial.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Copertino, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.