PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ

Evidence of uncharged crimes was properly admitted. The other robberies were sufficiently similar to the instant crime to be probative of defendant's identity, particularly because they involved defendant's use of the same distinctive nickname. Moreover, the prejudicial effect of the other crimes was minimized by the fact that this was a nonjury trial where the trier of facts is presumed capable of disregarding prejudicial aspects of evidence (see, People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 406).

Defendant's remaining argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find nothing in the record to suggest that the court's conduct of a hearing affected its ability to reach a fair and impartial verdict (see, People v. Moreno, supra).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.