Opinion
December 1, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the Sandoval motion. Inquiry into the prior larceny and robbery convictions was particularly probative of defendant's credibility because the incidents indicated defendant's willingness to put his own interest ahead of those of his victims and the community (see, People v Foster, 156 A.D.2d 252, 252-253, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 868). Although the two convictions were not recent, inquiry is not inappropriate if their bearing on defendant's credibility is still relevant (see, People v Yeaden, 156 A.D.2d 208, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 872). Nor does any similarity of the prior crimes to the present crime charged immunize defendant, in these circumstances, from inquiry concerning the prior convictions (People v Aiken, 162 A.D.2d 106, 107, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 851). Finally, even assuming that the trial court's Sandoval ruling was improper, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (People v Bryant, 72 A.D.2d 568).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.