Opinion
June 10, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Any inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony, and other matters bearing on their credibility, were properly placed before the jury, and we see no reason to disturb its findings ( People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). With appropriate limiting instructions, the court properly admitted testimony regarding defendant's prior bad acts. Such testimony was necessary for the jury to understand the corrupt relationship that existed between the witnesses and defendant and thus to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, particularly as to the willingness of defendant and the witnesses to include each other in misconduct ( People v. Bernard, 224 A.D.2d 192, 193, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 964; People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50, 73-74, affd 79 N.Y.2d 673).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.