Opinion
December 19, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment of conviction for first degree rape (Penal Law § 130.35) and first degree sodomy (Penal Law § 130.50), defendant's primary claim is that the trial court erred in its Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) by permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine him regarding whether he had perjured himself while testifying at a prior trial about crimes for which he had received immunity (see, New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U.S. 450, 459-460). Even assuming that use of this testimony for the purpose of impeachment was a "penalty or forfeiture" which defendant should not have suffered (see, CPL 50.10; cf. Matter of Anonymous Attorneys, 41 N.Y.2d 506), on this record we find the error to be harmless. There was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt based on the victim's credible testimony and corroborative evidence of the injuries she sustained as well as medical evidence of the sexual acts charged (see, People v Shields, 46 N.Y.2d 764; People v. Bostwick, 92 A.D.2d 697). Moreover, at the time the challenged cross-examination occurred defendant had already been properly questioned concerning several prior bad acts, including instances in which defendant admittedly rendered perjured testimony. Thus, there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to defendant's conviction (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237). We have considered defendant's remaining claims submitted by his counsel and pro se and find each one lacking in merit.