Opinion
June 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.).
In light of the fact that defendant was apprehended about 10 hours after the automobile was stolen, that he was driving the car when it was spotted by the police, that the police, after they requested he pull the car over, had to pursue defendant as he sped away and committed numerous traffic violations, and that defendant had no papers evincing ownership of the vehicle, the jury was warranted in concluding that defendant knowingly possessed the stolen vehicle (see, People v Schillaci, 68 A.D.2d 124).
The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in deciding that the prosecution could question defendant, if he took the stand, about the underlying facts of his two recent youthful offender adjudications for criminal possession of stolen property (involving an automobile) and criminal possession of a controlled substance, respectively (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Both adjudications bore heavily on defendant's credibility and his willingness to place his own interests before those of society (see, People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882). Moreover, the mere fact that defendant's prior crime is similar to the instant crime does not bar the prosecution from using the prior incident to impeach defendant's credibility (People v Cain, 167 A.D.2d 131, 133, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 836).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.