People v. Caldarola, 2

• Decision Date: 05 November 2001
• Docket Number: 98-07897,2
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. ROCCO CALDAROLA, APPELLANT. (IND. NO. 98-00027) 1998-07897 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Argued -
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. ROCCO CALDAROLA, APPELLANT.

(IND. NO. 98-00027)

1998-07897

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Argued - October 1, 2001

November 5, 2001

Joel Martin Aurnou, White Plains, N.Y. (Kieran J. Sullivan of counsel), for appellant.

Kevin L. Wright, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (Makaria Gallagher of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

David S. Ritter, J.P.

Anita R. Florio

Sandra J. Feuerstein

Stephen G. Crane, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), rendered July 14, 1998, convicting him of rape in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, five instances of prior bad acts toward the complainant were admissible to complete the narration and to demonstrate the intentional use of force, thereby contradicting the defendant's claim of consensual sex (see, People v Howard, A.D.2d [2d Dept., July 16, 2001]; People v Cook, 251 A.D.2d 1033, affd 93 N.Y.2d 840; People v. Shorey, 172 A.D.2d 634, 635). In addition, the court providently exercised its discretion in weighing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect (see, People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 55; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242; People v. Carver, 183 A.D.2d 907; People v. Thompson, 158 A.D.2d 563).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, FEUERSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.