PEOPLE v. HINES (1999)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered June 25, 1996, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant was convicted of reckless endangerment and criminal mischief for burning the complainant's clothes and the building in which she lived.   The defendant's contention that the court erred in allowing the complainant to testify to prior domestic incidents between him and the complainant is without merit.   Evidence of the prior uncharged crimes was properly received to establish the defendant's motive (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808).   Any prejudice that may have resulted from the admission of such evidence was outweighed by its probative value (see, People v. Alvino, supra;  People v. Carver, 183 A.D.2d 907, 584 N.Y.S.2d 142).

 Viewing trial counsel's conduct in its entirety, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187, 615 N.Y.S.2d 662, 639 N.E.2d 19).   The defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of any strategic or legitimate explanation for his counsel's conduct at trial (see, People v. Benevento, supra;  People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834), and there is no merit to the claims that his counsel made errors (see, United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474, 100 S.Ct. 1244, 63 L.Ed.2d 537;  People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 4, 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617;  People v. Albritton, 217 A.D.2d 553, 555, 629 N.Y.S.2d 270).   Accordingly, the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, supra).

 The sentencing court properly considered the defendant's criminal history, which included arrests for which the charges were dismissed (see, People v. Williams, 195 A.D.2d 492, 493, 599 N.Y.S.2d 848).   The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86-87, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.