Opinion
May 14, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).
The court's Sandoval "compromise" (People v Hicks, 88 A.D.2d 519) was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant had a significant criminal history, but had he opted to testify, the jury would have learned only that he had been convicted of a single crime. The proof that defendant possessed "white powder" and drug paraphernalia several months before he threatened the new landlord of his building was properly admitted into evidence on defendant's motive. (People v Moore, 42 N.Y.2d 421, 428, cert denied 434 U.S. 987; People v Munger, 24 N.Y.2d 445, 449.) Nor did the prosecutor err by arguing on summation that the white powder received from defendant in May 1988 was cocaine. The argument was reasonably related to the evidence.
The trial court did not err by excluding extrinsic evidence of the complainant's credibility. The proffered testimony that the complainant had asked for "key" money from two other persons was collateral to the issues raised at trial. (People v Cade, 73 N.Y.2d 904, 905.) We find no merit to defendant's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. (People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852.)
Defendant's remaining claims are unpreserved, and were we to reach them in the interest of justice, we would find them lacking in merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.