Opinion
November 10, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling, inter alia, permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant concerning two prior convictions was a provident exercise of discretion. The convictions were relevant to the defendant's credibility and his willingness to put his interests above those of society ( see, People v. Melvin, 223 A.D.2d 604; People v. Garner, 190 A.D.2d 994; People v. Byrd, 173 A.D.2d 549; People v. Noeth, 162 A.D.2d 724).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court marshaled the evidence in a fair and even-handed manner. The defendant's position was made clear to the jury in the defense counsel's summation and the court advised the jury that they were the "sole and exclusive judges of the facts" ( see, People v. Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665; People v. Rosero, 213 A.D.2d 500; People v. Nieves, 186 A.D.2d 281; People v. Napoletano, 185 A.D.2d 252).
Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.