Opinion
December 21, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It was not error to refuse to rule on the defendant's Sandoval motion. In order for a defendant to obtain a ruling on what prior bad acts the prosecutor can use to impeach his credibility, the defendant has to reveal those prior bad acts to the court (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 378; People v Malphurs, 111 A.D.2d 266, 269, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 616, 920).
In addition, there should be no merger of the defendant's convictions of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree with his convictions of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and burglary in the second degree. The method employed by the defendant to immobilize his victims was sufficiently grave or horrendous that it could support a separate prosecution (People v Cassidy, 40 N.Y.2d 763, 767). In addition, the detention of the women was not incidental to and inseparable from the other substantive crimes, and represented an aggravating circumstance which the law is intended to proscribe (People v Brown, 112 A.D.2d 1087).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.