Opinion
January 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At the trial, the defendant failed to challenge the Sandoval ruling on the ground that it violated his right against self-incrimination. Therefore, any challenge to the ruling on that ground is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666; People v Yoong Boom Kim, 170 A.D.2d 707).
Moreover, we find no merit to the defendant's contention that the court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecutor to question him, if he testified, as to his participation in an uncharged robbery committed the same night, and in the same general location as the crimes for which the defendant was on trial, was improper. In reaching that determination, the court properly balanced the probative value of the evidence against its potential for impermissible prejudice in reaching that determination (see, People v. Dillon, 189 A.D.2d 775; see also, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; cf., People v. Moore, 156 A.D.2d 394).
The defendant's remaining contention does not require reversal. Rosenblatt, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.