Opinion
October 13, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The mere fact that a defendant committed crimes similar to the one charged does not automatically preclude the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes ( see, People v. Mattiace, supra; People v. Pavao, supra; People v. McClam, 225 A.D.2d 799). The court's ruling that the prosecutor could inquire into the underlying facts of the defendant's conviction of murder and a bad act, i.e., the slashing by the defendant of another inmate, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial nor prevent him from asserting an adequate defense ( see, People v. McClainin, 178 A.D.2d 495).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.