People v. Radoncic

• Decision Date: 25 March 1999
• Citation: 687 N.Y.S.2d 141
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 2619 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Radzo RADONCIC, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 141

687 N.Y.S.2d 141

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 2619

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Radzo RADONCIC, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

March 25, 1999.

Richard Nahas, for Respondent.

Joseph A. Grob, for Defendant-Appellant.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., TOM, WALLACH and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered March 3, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

With appropriate limiting instructions, the court properly admitted evidence of an uncharged crime wherein defendant had been involved in the use of a credit card stolen from a tenant in the building where he worked as a superintendent, as described in our prior decision (People v. Radoncic, 239 A.D.2d 176, 657 N.Y.S.2d 627, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 897, 662 N.Y.S.2d 440, 685 N.E.2d 221). There was ample evidence of defendant's participation in the prior crime, and that crime was probative of defendant's knowledge and intent (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293, 61 N.E. 286), "negative[d] the possibility of good faith or inadvertence" (People v. Ingram, 71 N.Y.2d 474, 479, 527 N.Y.S.2d 363, 522 N.E.2d 439), and completed the narrative of the case, including the reason for defendant's arrest (see, People v. Montanez, 41 N.Y.2d 53, 58, 390 N.Y.S.2d 861, 359 N.E.2d 371; People v. Hernandez, 139 A.D.2d 472, 477, 527 N.Y.S.2d 404, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 957, 534 N.Y.S.2d 671, 531 N.E.2d 303). The People were not required to rest after merely presenting a prima facie case (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808).

The trial court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472), since defendant's theft-related conviction was highly relevant to his credibility (see, People v. Post, 235 A.D.2d 299, 653 N.Y.S.2d 307, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 862, 661 N.Y.S.2d 189, 683 N.E.2d 1063).

Defendant's arguments regarding the People's summation are not preserved for appellate review and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find the challenged comments to be responsive to defense arguments (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant's contention that a non-activated credit card is not a "credit card" within the meaning of General Business Law § 511(1) was not preserved for appellate review (People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-20, 629...