Opinion
February 27, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.).
Defendant's claim that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of uncharged crimes is without merit. The testimony complained of related to defendant's intent to sell, provided background information, and was inextricably interwoven with the crimes charged, and its probative value outweighed any prejudice ( People v. Hernandez, 216 A.D.2d 11, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 795; People v. Perez, 221 A.D.2d 258). Moreover, the court gave sufficient limiting instructions to the jury respecting that evidence, and we presume that the jury followed those instructions ( People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102; People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835, 836-837). To the extent that some of the testimony arguably suggesting that defendant sold drugs on previous occasions was brought out by defense counsel, defendant cannot now claim prejudice ( People v. Rosario, 214 A.D.2d 345, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 801). We do not find the sentence imposed to be unduly harsh or severe.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.