Opinion
April 22, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The only issue raised on appeal concerns the court's Sandoval ruling. We conclude that the court's ruling was not an improvident exercise of its discretion, as the defendant failed to establish that the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence of some of his past illegal activities outweighed its probative value (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Boseman, 161 A.D.2d 601). The court precluded, as unduly prejudicial, any inquiry into a youthful offender adjudication which involved possession of a weapon and inquiry into the underlying facts of a conviction involving the sale of narcotics. The court's decision to permit inquiry into the underlying facts, but not the disposition, of a second youthful offender adjudication was proper (see, People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, cert denied 423 U.S. 861; People v. Colon, 161 A.D.2d 782). Since the facts underlying the youthful offender adjudication involved a larceny, those facts were probative of the defendant's credibility (see, People v. Boseman, supra; People v. Branch, 155 A.D.2d 475). Lawrence, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.