Opinion
March 26, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.).
We perceive no error in the trial court's Sandoval ruling. Defendant's prior convictions were relevant since they bore upon defendant's credibility ( People v Nestman, 220 A.D.2d 232). Defendant never made a specific objection to the court's ruling concerning his prior youthful offender adjudication, and therefore, the claim is unpreserved for review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find reversal would not be warranted under the facts of this case.
We also find unpreserved defendant's arguments concerning the "no inference" charge ( People v Rivera, 207 A.D.2d 732, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1037) and the lack of an identification charge ( People v Williams, 184 A.D.2d 333). Were we to review these claims, we would find them to be without merit.
Defendant expressly declines to challenge the conviction by plea of guilty.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.