Opinion
May 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that the extent to which the prosecution should be allowed to impeach the credibility of a defendant is a matter that is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 146; People v. Johnston, 186 A.D.2d 822). Here, the trial court ruled that the prosecutor could inquire as to whether or not the defendant had been convicted of a felony, without going into the underlying facts. This was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The fact that the conviction was over 10 years old did not, by itself, require preclusion of impeachment (see, People v. Ricks, 135 A.D.2d 844, 845). Additionally, by adopting a Sandoval compromise precluding the prosecutor from eliciting the underlying facts, the court avoided any undue prejudice which could have resulted (see, People v. Ricks, supra; People v Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Further, contrary to the defendant's protestations, we find that he was afforded meaningful representation by counsel (see, People v. Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Copertino, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.