Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly allowed an eyewitness to testify that he had recognized the defendant from a previous incident wherein the defendant had robbed him. The witness's testimony established his ability to identify the defendant when he observed him in the course of committing the present robbery. Therefore, the prior uncharged crime was admissible to prove the identity of the defendant (see, People v. Wilson, 225 A.D.2d 642; People v. Johnson, 216 A.D.2d 583; People v. Jamerson, 119 A.D.2d 588). Moreover, any prejudice to the defendant was obviated by the court's limiting instruction during and after the witness's testimony, in addition to the court's instructions in the jury charge (see, People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 49).