Opinion
June 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling was an improvident exercise of the court's discretion because it permitted the prosecutor to cross examine the defendant, if he testified, about his prior robbery conviction (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Lopez, 161 A.D.2d 670; People v Alexander, 154 A.D.2d 607). As the court specifically observed, the robbery conviction was relevant to the issue of the defendant's honesty and credibility (see, People v. Jones, 215 A.D.2d 501; People v. Smalls, 128 A.D.2d 907).
The sentence that was imposed is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.