People v. Daily

After a thorough hearing pursuant to People v Ventimiglia (52 NY2d 350), the court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s 1992 robbery conviction for the purpose of establishing his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes charged (see People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241, 250-253). Defendant’s current and prior crimes shared a sufficiently distinctive modus operand! whereby defendant and his accomplices robbed persons in Manhattan’s jewelry district, during the evening rush hour, as they carried packages of jewelry for delivery. Slight differences between the charged…