Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Chester, Orange County (Janet M. Haislip, J.), rendered June 27, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of reckless driving.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

On this appeal from a judgment convicting defendant, upon a jury verdict, of reckless driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212), he contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt, that the court erred in allowing the People to introduce testimony on their direct case of prior bad acts, and that the sentence was excessive.

At the conclusion of the People's case, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case. Defendant then proceeded to present evidence in his own behalf. At the conclusion of the trial, defendant did not renew his motion to dismiss the information. Accordingly, he failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; People v Borden, 39 AD3d 1242 [2007]). Nevertheless, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of reckless driving beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]).

Evidence of uncharged crimes or bad acts is generally inadmissible to establish a defendant's propensity to engage in criminal behavior (see People v Ingram, 71 NY2d 474, 479 [1988]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 291-294 [1901]). However, exceptions exist, inter alia, when said evidence is relevant to a material aspect of the People's direct case, or to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, common scheme or plan, or the identity of the [*2]defendant (see People v Molineux, 168 NY at 293; see also People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]). In any event, the evidence may not be received unless its probative value outweighs its potential prejudice (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 529 [1986]). In the instant case, a review of the record reveals that the evidence was relevant to establish that defendant's acts were intentional, rather than a mistake or accident, and the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential prejudice.

Under the circumstances presented, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive. Accordingly, defendant's conviction of reckless driving is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 12, 2007