PEOPLE v. IGBINOSUN (2005)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of one count of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35) and five counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (§ 170.25).   County Court properly refused to suppress items seized from defendant.   The items were seized during the execution of search warrants that were properly issued upon probable cause (see generally People v. Ashley, 2 A.D.3d 1321, 1322, 768 N.Y.S.2d 885, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 851, 797 N.Y.S.2d 425, 830 N.E.2d 324), based in part on information provided by other law enforcement officers to the officer who appeared before the Magistrate (see People v. Laughing, 288 A.D.2d 885, 886-887, 732 N.Y.S.2d 768).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in refusing to preclude the People from presenting certain Molineux evidence.   Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence at issue was properly admitted.  “Where[, as here,] identity is in issue and has not been conclusively established, evidence relevant to identification is admissible notwithstanding its incidental proof of guilt of a crime other than those charged” (People v. Battles, 83 A.D.2d 164, 166, 443 N.Y.S.2d 932), and the evidence challenged by defendant was relevant to identification.   We thus conclude that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to defendant (see id. at 167, 443 N.Y.S.2d 932;  see generally People v. Burkett, 12 A.D.3d 1196, 1196-1197, 784 N.Y.S.2d 433, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 762, 792 N.Y.S.2d 5, 825 N.E.2d 137).

We have examined defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: