Opinion
March 10, 1989
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Reed, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court's Sandoval ruling was not an abuse of discretion. The determination of what evidence of other crimes may be introduced for purposes of impeachment in the event defendant chooses to testify lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Coleman, 56 N.Y.2d 269, 273; People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371).
Viewing the evidence as we must in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 437; People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence to establish that defendant stole property in excess of $250 from the Firestone tire store by means of false pretenses (see, Penal Law § 155.05 [a]; former § 155.30 [1]).
We have reviewed all other claims raised on appeal and find that they either have not been properly preserved for review or are without merit.