Opinion
March 11, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of an uncharged crime (see, CPL 470.05; People v Gomez, 67 N.Y.2d 843; People v Williams, 187 A.D.2d 547; People v Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666). In any event, the trial court did not err in allowing the victim to testify that he observed the defendant beating another man across the street immediately prior to the instant offense. The victim's testimony established his ability to identify the defendant when he was subsequently approached by the defendant and attacked. Under People v Molineux ( 168 N.Y. 264), evidence of prior crimes may be used to prove identity (see also, People v Johnson, 216 A.D.2d 583; People v Branch, 191 A.D.2d 576, affd 83 N.Y.2d 663). Moreover, any prejudice to the defendant was obviated by the court's limiting instruction immediately prior to the victim's testimony regarding the uncharged crime (see, People v Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 49).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Joy, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.