People v. Hamilton, 73 A.D.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
People v. Hamilton, 73 A.D.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Johnson (nyappdiv, 2026-05-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson (5×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
The potential for prejudice stemming from this episode was minimal, as the incident involved only a verbal dispute, defendant did not issue any threats or engage in any violent acts, and the girlfriend never had an order of protection against defendant ( see People v Frumusa , 29 NY3d 364, 369-370 [2017]; People v Hamilton , 73 AD3d 408, 409 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 774 [2010]). [*2] The court also properly permitted the prosecutor to ask the girlfriend, who testified on defendant's behalf, whether defendant had "ever shown signs of jealousy" during their relationship.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Andre Hamilton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 4, 2010.
73 A.D.3d 408
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Gross, J.), rendered September 11, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first and second degrees and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 13 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility, including its evaluation of the inability of one of the shooting victims to identify defendant, and[*409] the claim that the other shooting victim’s aunt improperly influenced his identification of defendant.

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting limited testimony that the complainant in the second of the two incidents involved in this case had previously observed defendant engaged in a dispute with her son. Merely having a dispute with another person is not a crime, and “mere speculation that a jury might discern something sinister about a defendant’s behavior does not render that behavior an ‘uncharged crime’ ” (People v Flores, 210 AD2d 1, 2 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1031 [1995]). This evidence was not unduly prejudicial, and it was probative of the witness’s ability to accurately identify defendant, an issue that defense counsel refused to concede.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court should have given the jury a limiting instruction regarding the evidence of the prior dispute, or his challenges to the prosecutor’s summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.