Opinion
March 18, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.).
Limited testimony that the police targeted the location of the arrest due to community complaints was properly admitted to explain police presence and conduct, and any prejudice to defendant was prevented by the court's instructions ( see, People v. Granado, 222 A.D.2d 286, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 848; People v. Garcia, 213 A.D.2d 249, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 973). The court properly permitted the undercover officer to testify anonymously ( see, People v. Kearse, 215 A.D.2d 104, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 797), since the record supports the court's implied finding that security concerns warranted anonymity and the court's instructions likewise prevented any possible prejudice. Defendant's arrest photograph was properly admitted, since it established that defendant was arrested wearing clothing similar to the clothing described by the undercover officer in his testimony, and thus was plainly relevant ( see, People v. Smith, 254 A.D.2d 192).
We find the sentence imposed to be excessive to the extent indicated.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.