Opinion
May 15, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Curci, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in its Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecutor to impeach him with the underlying facts of a prior robbery conviction. We disagree. Convictions involving theft, such as robbery, are highly relevant to the issue of credibility because they demonstrate the defendant's willingness to deliberately further his self-interest at the expense of society (see, People v Drakes, 211 A.D.2d 809; People v Kelland, 208 A.D.2d 954; People v Miller, 199 A.D.2d 422, 423). Moreover, any similarities between the defendant's prior conviction and the crimes charged did not compel preclusion (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Harvey, 212 A.D.2d 730). Finally, the record demonstrates that the court engaged in a proper balancing between the probative value of the conviction for impeachment purposes and the prejudicial effect of such impeachment upon the defendant (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 376; People v West, 212 A.D.2d 651). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.