Opinion
December 11, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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. Moreover, 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).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's Sandoval ruling does not warrant reversal of the judgment of conviction. It is settled that "questioning concerning other crimes is not automatically precluded simply because the crimes to be inquired about are similar to the crimes charged" (People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; see also, People v Natal, 144 A.D.2d 587, 588, lv granted 74 N.Y.2d 667; People v Smalls, 128 A.D.2d 907; People v Brock, 125 A.D.2d 401). In this case, the defendant's prior convictions involved theft of property and, thus, were highly relevant to the issue of credibility (see, People v Natal, supra, at 588; People v Smalls, supra). Accordingly, the trial court's ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80), and we decline to reduce it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.