The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting uncharged crimes evidence. The three consolidated indictments emanate from a crime spree in which defendant and a codefendant robbed numerous newsstands. The challenged testimony of the victims as to their previous contact with defendant and the codefendant, including the commission of uncharged petty crimes, was highly probative of defendant's identity by setting a context from which it could be determined that the victims had ample opportunity to focus their attention on defendant, familiarize themselves with his appearance, and correctly identify him (see, People v. Agostini, 239 A.D.2d 426, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 939). The evidence was also relevant because it tended to establish that defendant and the codefendant were acquaintances, since persons are more likely to commit crimes with acquaintances than strangers (see, People v. Hurd, 160 A.D.2d 199, 76 lv denied 789). Finally, the fact that the codefendant had been defendant's prior partner in crime was relevant to refute one of the defenses defendant raised at trial (see, People v. Torres, 249 A.D.2d 19, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 907). The court's limiting instructions prevented any undue prejudice to defendant.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.