Opinion
June 24, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Danaher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted for his participation in the armed robbery of a taxi-cab driver. His codefendant's conviction was affirmed by this court in People v Williams ( 142 A.D.2d 310). The underlying facts of this case are set forth in that decision.
The defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting the People and the codefendant to cross-examine him as to the underlying facts of a previous attempted robbery conviction, notwithstanding that the court in its Sandoval ruling directed that the defendant could be cross-examined only as to the fact of that conviction. We disagree.
The defendant failed to register specific objections to the cross-examination, and has thereby failed to preserve his argument for appellate review (see, People v Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947; People v Irby, 112 A.D.2d 447). In any event, the record reveals that the court generally kept the cross-examination within the bounds of its Sandoval ruling, and, at most, allowed a limited amount of further cross-examination only after the defendant himself went beyond the fact of conviction by attempting to downplay the circumstances of the prior crime. Under the circumstances, and considering the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt, any arguable error in this regard was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.