Opinion
April 25, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). The testimony of the complainant established that he was confronted by the defendant and a group of 4 or 5 others at a bus stop. The complainant was threatened by one individual with a screwdriver and two others holding knives. The defendant then removed the complainant's wallet and watch. The jury credited the complainant's testimony. We find no reason in the record to warrant disturbing its determination in that regard, particularly in light of the complainant's ability to closely observe the defendant and the certainty with which he identified the defendant the next day to the arresting officers. The jury also rejected the testimony of the alibi witnesses and its determination to do so was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15; see, People v. Azzara, 138 A.D.2d 495; People v Hooper, 112 A.D.2d 317, 318).
Additionally, we find that the court's pretrial Sandoval ruling (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant, for impeachment purposes, concerning the illegal larcenous acts underlying his prior youthful offender adjudication (see, People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 176; People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 264, cert denied 423 U.S. 861), was not an abuse of discretion. It is well settled that "[t]he fact that the prior offense was similar in nature to those for which the defendant was on trial did not mandate its preclusion [since] [t]he People have an interest in exploring a defendant's veracity, and the fact that he might specialize in one type of criminal activity should not shield him from impeachment" (People v. Gonzalez, 111 A.D.2d 870, 871, revd on other grounds 68 N.Y.2d 424; see, People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 147; People v. Brock, 125 A.D.2d 401, 402, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 824; People v. Frumerin, 121 A.D.2d 736, 737, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 812; People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882).
Finally, the defendant's argument that the court's resubmission instructions were prejudicial has not been preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 9, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039). In any event, the supplemental instructions were proper. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.