Opinion
February 5, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to elicit testimony regarding an uncharged crime consisting of an attempted robbery and in admitting certain portions of the defendant's statements which concerned uncharged crimes. The challenged testimony was relevant to the identification of the defendant (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350; People v. Hazel, 203 A.D.2d 478) and necessary to complete the narrative (see, People v. Sceravino, 193 A.D.2d 824; People v. Smith, 203 A.D.2d 603). The portions of the defendant's statements were admissible because they were relevant to motive (see, People v. McDowell, 191 A.D.2d 515).
Additionally, the trial court provided the jury with appropriate limiting instructions regarding the defendant's uncharged crimes.
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.