Opinion
February 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators. His motion for a trial order of dismissal did not refer to any specific deficiency in the evidence presented by the People ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Johnson, 185 A.D.2d 247; see also, People v. Kerr, 210 A.D.2d 349, 350). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15)
The court properly admitted evidence of the defendant's prior threats. Despite the general prohibition against evidence of uncharged crimes, the testimony regarding threats made by the defendant was admissible as it was relevant on the issue of his motive in committing the offenses charged, and was inextricably interwoven with the crime ( see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242; People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359; People v. Jones, 221 A.D.2d 661; People v. Goodman, 167 A.D.2d 352, 353; People v. Johnson, 155 A.D.2d 924, 925; see also, People v. Crandall, 67 N.Y.2d 111; People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364; People v. Seaberry, 138 A.D.2d 422, 423). Additionally, it was admissible to complete the narrative of events regarding the commission of the offense ( see, People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932; see also, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. DeLeon, 177 A.D.2d 641).
The defendant's motion to vacate his judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, based on a claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, was properly denied. Viewing the defense counsel's performance "in its entirety, in conjunction with the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case" ( People v. Vanterpool, 143 A.D.2d 282; see also, People v. Batdi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v. Johnson, 184 A.D.2d 732, 733; People v. Blackman, 173 A.D.2d 482, 483; People v. Baldi, 159 A.D.2d 577, 579), we find that the defendant enjoyed meaningful representation at all stages of the trial.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Joy, J. P., Krausman, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.