Opinion
April 2, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution ( People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the evidence of defendant's guilt of criminal trespass, in particular his unlawful entry into the apartment building, was legally sufficient.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that defendant could be asked whether he had been convicted of committing four robberies, particularly where the court precluded cross-examination into the underlying facts of the crimes and defendant's criminal record included nine felonies ( People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Moreover, "[t]he mere fact that the crime charged is similar to others defendant has previously committed does not of itself require preclusion, nor does the fact that a defendant may specialize in a particular type of crime insulate him from cross-examination with respect to those crimes" ( People v. Sharkey, 186 A.D.2d 63, 64, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1030).
Defendant's contention that a comment made by the court during voir dire denigrated the defense is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.