Opinion
November 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in its Sandoval ruling is without merit. The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that should the defendant choose to testify, the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine him regarding a prior conviction for criminal possession of a weapon ( see, People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709, 712; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Williams, 249 A.D.2d 427).
Many of the challenged comments made by the prosecutor are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). In any event, any improper comments were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837 for reason stated below).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.