Opinion
1999-09659
Argued October 8, 2002.
November 18, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), rendered October 7, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Debra E. Baker of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, Kimberly Sexton, and Esther Noe of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence that the defendant threatened to harm the victim's three-year old daughter was necessary background material which facilitated the jury's understanding of the relationship among the parties, and helped the jury to understand the sequence of events culminating in the charged crime (see People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835; People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932; People v. Jones, 293 A.D.2d 489; People v. Farrington, 272 A.D.2d 624; People v. Montana, 192 A.D.2d 623; cf. People v. Ward, 62 N.Y.2d 816; People v. Cook, 42 N.Y.2d 204; People v. Tucker, 102 A.D.2d 535) . Furthermore, the Supreme Court prevented any possible prejudice by giving a prompt instruction to the jury regarding the use to which it could put this evidence (see generally People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294; People v. Young, 291 A.D.2d 578; People v. Carver, 183 A.D.2d 907; People v. Mulgrave, 163 A.D.2d 538).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Felix, 58 N.Y.2d 156; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.