PEOPLE v. EBANKS (2009)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith S. Lieb, J.), rendered January 11, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts), and stalking in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 3 2/323 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the People to introduce evidence of uncharged crimes that were probative of defendant's motive and intent and provided background information explaining the sequence of events and the relationship between defendant and the victim (see e.g. People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50, 72-74, 573 N.Y.S.2d 965 [1991], affd. 79 N.Y.2d 673, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845 [1992] ).   Unlike evidence of general criminal propensity, evidence that a particular victim was the focus of a defendant's continuing aggression may be highly relevant (see People v. Bierenbaum, 301 A.D.2d 119, 150, 748 N.Y.S.2d 563 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 626, 760 N.Y.S.2d 107, 790 N.E.2d 281 [2003], cert. denied 540 U.S. 821, 124 S.Ct. 134, 157 L.Ed.2d 40 [2003] ), and the People “were not bound to stop after presenting minimum evidence” (People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808 [1987] ).   The probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, which was minimized by the court's suitable limiting instructions.   Defendant's constitutional argument is both unpreserved and without merit (see People v. Pettaway, 30 A.D.3d 257, 817 N.Y.S.2d 31 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 816, 822 N.Y.S.2d 491, 855 N.E.2d 807 [2006] ).

Defendant's argument, including his constitutional claim, that the court should have provided a remedy, beyond the inquiry it conducted, for his assertion that the police improperly destroyed allegedly exculpatory evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.   As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.