Opinion
March 6, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the convictions. 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).
We find the court did not abuse its discretion under People v Sandoval ( 34 N.Y.2d 371) in allowing the prosecution to question the defendant regarding a past conviction of petit larceny and charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance. The court excluded certain arrests for robbery and the conviction for the crime of larceny did not have to be precluded merely because it was similar to the crime of robbery since it was highly relevant to the issue of the defendant's credibility (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Smalls, 128 A.D.2d 907; People v. James, 100 A.D.2d 552). Furthermore, the court did not allow inquiry as to the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance until after the defendant testified that he had never been an addict. The court was particularly careful that the probative value of such information would outweigh the possible prejudice (see, People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258).
We note that the instances in the prosecutor's summation which the defendant contends constituted prosecutorial misconduct were either proper responses to comments of the defense attorneys (see, People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67; People v. Colonna, 135 A.D.2d 724), or properly ameliorated by prompt curative instructions (see, People v. Garcia, 72 A.D.2d 356, affd 52 N.Y.2d 716; People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179; People v. Soto, 133 A.D.2d 787).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.