Opinion
March 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged, inter alia, with attempting to steal two automobiles. Prior to the trial, the court ruled that the prosecutor would not be permitted to ask the defendant about the facts underlying six prior felony convictions arising out of automobile thefts, and an additional misdemeanor conviction, but would be allowed to ask the defendant the dates of those convictions and whether the convictions were for crimes classified as felonies or misdemeanors. The court also held that the prosecutor could inquire into the underlying facts of a misdemeanor assault conviction. Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the trial court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of its discretion (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Gamble, 182 A.D.2d 703, 704; People v. Aguilera, 156 A.D.2d 698, 699; People v Ortiz, 143 A.D.2d 107; People v. Torres, 110 A.D.2d 794).
The defendant's remaining contentions regarding alleged improper comments by the prosecutor during summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Rosado, 143 A.D.2d 1061, 1062), and, in any event, do not warrant a new trial (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Fanfair, 176 A.D.2d 958; People v. Rosado, supra). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.