Opinion
July 3, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's argument, we are of the view that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that the People could cross-examine him regarding the facts underlying two convictions which were of a similar nature to the instant charges, if he chose to testify at trial, since those prior crimes were probative of the defendant's willingness to put his self-interest before that of society (People v Thompson, 117 A.D.2d 637; People v Williams, 108 A.D.2d 767). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.