Opinion
June 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as academic in light of the determination on the appeal from the judgment.
The defendant challenges the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling, whereby the People were permitted to cross-examine the defendant as to whether he has been convicted of more than 15 misdemeanors and more than one felony. The court precluded inquiry into the underlying charges or facts involved. We find that under the circumstances of this case, this was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Moore, 178 A.D.2d 561).
However, as the People concede, the defendant's adjudication and sentencing as a second violent felony offender must be vacated because his prior conviction in California for burglary in the first degree is not the equivalent of a conviction for a New York felony (see, Penal Law § 70.04 [b] [i]; People v Muniz, 74 N.Y.2d 464). Accordingly, the defendant's sentence must be vacated, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court for resentencing (see, People v. Quinlan, 161 A.D.2d 280; People v Perry, 161 A.D.2d 1156). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.