PEOPLE v. COMSTOCK (1999)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20).   Upon arriving at the scene of the burglary, an investigating police officer discovered a traffic ticket that he had issued the day before.   After questioning by the police, the person to whom the ticket had been issued gave a confession implicating defendant.   Contrary to defendant's contention, the testimony of the accomplice was sufficiently corroborated (see, People v. Moses, 63 N.Y.2d 299, 306, 482 N.Y.S.2d 228, 472 N.E.2d 4;  People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624, 629-630, 376 N.Y.S.2d 436, 339 N.E.2d 139).   The statement of defendant to the police that he was with the accomplice all night was confirmed by defendant's wife;  the testimony of the accomplice's mother placed defendant and the accomplice near the scene of the crime around 3:00 A.M.;   and other details described by the accomplice were corroborated by defendant's wife or the accomplice's mother.

We also reject the contentions that the conviction is against the weight of the evidence or based on legally insufficient evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   County Court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472;  People v. Laraby, 219 A.D.2d 817, 632 N.Y.S.2d 355, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 849, 644 N.Y.S.2d 696, 667 N.E.2d 346, 88 N.Y.2d 937, 647 N.Y.S.2d 171, 670 N.E.2d 455).

 We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in allowing the People to present evidence that defendant admitted that he committed prior larcenies of car stereos from the same business.   Such evidence is admissible “in limited circumstances, when the defendant employs some unique, unusual, or distinctive modus operandi in an uncharged crime that is relevant to proving his identity as the perpetrator of the crime charged” (People v. Mateo, 93 N.Y.2d 327, 332, 690 N.Y.S.2d 527, 712 N.E.2d 692;  see, People v. Condon, 26 N.Y.2d 139, 143-144, 309 N.Y.S.2d 152, 257 N.E.2d 615).   Here, the prior larcenies lacked sufficient similarity to the instant crime to have a “significant bearing upon the identity issue” (People v. Johnson, 114 A.D.2d 210, 212, 498 N.Y.S.2d 804;  cf., People v. Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241, 251-252, 455 N.Y.S.2d 575, 441 N.E.2d 1093).   We conclude, however, that the error is harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: