Opinion
April 18, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling, permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant with respect to the underlying facts of theft-related crimes, did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). Questioning concerning other crimes is not automatically precluded simply because the crime to be inquired about is similar to that charged (People v. Pavao, supra; People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882). In balancing the probative weight of the evidence, the court properly determined that because the defendant's prior convictions involved theft of property, it was relevant on the question of credibility and demonstrated his willingness to deliberately further his self-interest at the expense of society (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377; People v. Pally, 131 A.D.2d 889, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 753).
Furthermore, we find that the defendant was provided with meaningful and effective assistance by counsel at both the pretrial hearings and the trial (see, People v. Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941, 942). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court properly declined to suppress the identification testimony of the victim because there was no issue of suggestiveness and not because of any failure on the part of counsel. The victim came upon the defendant as he burglarized her apartment and immediately recognized him as a resident of her apartment building and supplied the police with his last name. The station house viewing of a photographic array by the victim was "more in the nature of a confirmation rather than an identification" (People v. Fleming, 109 A.D.2d 848, 849; see also, People v Charles, 111 A.D.2d 405). Moreover, the victim's selection of the defendant's photograph was not the result of any suggestive conduct on the part of the police, but the result of her own information (see, People v. Laguer, 58 A.D.2d 610). Additionally, we note that the strategy adopted by defense counsel during the Sandoval hearing was not "`outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance'" (People v. Harris, 109 A.D.2d 351, 361, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 919).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.