Opinion
October 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that the extent to which the prosecution is to be permitted to impeach a defendant's credibility with prior criminal conduct is a decision best left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 146; People v DeMaio, 154 A.D.2d 386). The court's Sandoval ruling (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), which permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant with respect to his most recent convictions of unrelated crimes, was proper. The prior convictions were highly relevant to the issue of the defendant's credibility and demonstrated that he placed his interests above those of society (see, People v DeMaio, supra; People v Johnson, 137 A.D.2d 719).
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the 35-year-old mentally retarded complainant to testify under oath. The court's preliminary examination of the complainant adequately demonstrated that she understood the nature of testifying under oath and was competent to be sworn as a witness (see, CPL 60.20; People v Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36). Under the circumstances, the court's determination on this issue should not be disturbed (see, People v Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560).
Furthermore, we find that the corroboration requirement of Penal Law § 130.16 was satisfied by the circumstantial evidence, which tended to establish that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it (see, People v Groff, 71 N.Y.2d 101, 107-108; People v Allen, 99 A.D.2d 592, affd 64 N.Y.2d 979; People v Pepper, 89 A.D.2d 714, affd 59 N.Y.2d 353; People v De Vyver, 89 A.D.2d 745, 747).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v Morton, 116 A.D.2d 925), or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.