Opinion
October 4, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that, should the defendant choose to testify, the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine him with respect to several prior felony convictions, their underlying facts, and the defendant's use of aliases in connection with those convictions (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The defendant's prior convictions demonstrated his willingness to place his interests above those of society and some of them were especially probative of his credibility because they involved an element of larceny (see, People v. Sandoval, supra, at 377; People v. Boseman, 161 A.D.2d 601, 602; People v. Ellis, 162 A.D.2d 611). The mere fact that the convictions were similar in nature to the instant offense does not warrant preclusion (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Hamilton, 171 A.D.2d 882). Inquiry into the underlying facts was proper (see, People v. Ellis, supra, at 611; People v Boseman, supra; People v. Alford, 178 A.D.2d 418). Also, permitting inquiry regarding his use of aliases in connection with the convictions that were admissible under the court's Sandoval ruling was not error (see, People v. Greer, 181 A.D.2d 422; see generally, People v. Rivera, 180 A.D.2d 560; People v. Esquilin, 141 A.D.2d 838).
We also find that the court properly denied the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 since the defendant was provided with effective assistance of counsel (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Lundy, 104 A.D.2d 384).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Hucks, 175 A.D.2d 213, 214; People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866; People v. Rogelio, 79 N.Y.2d 843; People v. Williams, 78 N.Y.2d 1087, 1088; People v. Hilliard, 173 A.D.2d 559; People v Merchant, 171 A.D.2d 887). Thompson, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.