Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered April 24, 2006, convicting him of menacing in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of two prior break-ins to his estranged wife’s apartment is unpreserved for appellate review (see CEL 470.05 [2]; People v Rosen, 81 NY2d 237 [1993]). In any event, in light of the defendant’s contentions that he did not intend to harm his estranged wife and son with a knife he was carrying during the incident in question, the court properly admitted the evidence of the two prior break-ins, inter alia, to complete the narrative of the event and establish intent (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]).
The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to give proper limiting instructions concerning the jury’s use of the testimony regarding his prior bad acts is unpreserved *491for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Webb, 1 AD3d 542 [2003]). In any event, the court gave an appropriate limiting instruction (cf. People v Norman, 40 AD3d 1128 [2007]).
There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the evidence leading to his conviction on one count each of menacing in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree regarding his son was legally insufficient. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P, Ritter, Santucci and Garni, JJ., concur.