Opinion
January 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the People's case-in-chief the victim's daughter was permitted to testify about prior acts of violence by the defendant toward her mother during their 10-year relationship. The People assert that this evidence was admissible under the rule set forth in People v. Molineux ( 168 N.Y. 264) because the defendant claimed he was intoxicated, and they assert that such evidence tended to prove his intent. We find that under the facts of this case the isolated and remote prior acts were improperly admitted into evidence since they tended to show the defendant's predisposition to violence (see, People v. Ingram, 71 N.Y.2d 474, 479; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242; Matter of Brandon, 55 N.Y.2d 206, 212; People v. Gautier, 148 A.D.2d 280, 285-286; cf., People v. Band, 125 A.D.2d 683, 686). However, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and the limited extent of the improper testimony, we find that the jury's attention would not have been diverted from the actual charges to be proven, and thus the admission of the prior acts into evidence was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; cf., People v. Harris, 150 A.D.2d 723, 726).
We find that the defendant's remaining contentions concerning remarks made in the prosecutor's summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 324; People v. Johnson, 154 A.D.2d 618; People v. Leach, 148 A.D.2d 751, 752; CPL 470.05), and we decline to reach the issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Moreover, we find that the remaining comments by the prosecutor were within the bounds of the evidence and permissible rhetorical comment (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Brown and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.