Judgment affirmed.
The trial court did not err in allowing the complainant to testify that he recognized the defendant because he had seen the defendant upon a prior occasion. Despite the fact that the prior observations were had during an alleged robbery, the testimony did not fall outside the limited purpose exception to the exclusionary rule, that evidence of prior crimes may be used to prove identity (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. Condon, 26 N.Y.2d 139; People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40; People v. Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241; cf. People v. Fogel, 97 A.D.2d 445).
We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's dual motion to consolidate the instant indictment with a prior indictment, and to sever his trial from that of codefendant Sutton's (see, People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 8-9; People v. Simpkins, 110 A.D.2d 790; People v. Napolitano, 106 A.D.2d 304, affd 66 N.Y.2d 852). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.