Opinion
October 29, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Charles J. Tejada, J.
Defendant and a codefendant pickpocketed the complainant while he was entering a subway car and as two plainclothes police officers observed. Defendant's contention that the court's Sandoval ruling constituted an abuse of discretion is without merit. The trial court ruled that the People could use the fact that defendant had 11 prior convictions to impeach the defendant's credibility. However, to prevent the jury from learning of the similarity between the crime charged herein and the prior convictions the court did not allow the People to inquire into the nature of these convictions or their underlying facts (see, People v Davis, 168 A.D.2d 218, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 876).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining argument and find it to be unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.