Opinion
June 29, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the trial court's Sandoval ruling (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) which permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant concerning his criminal history, if he testified, was an improvident exercise of discretion. Evidence of prior criminal, vicious, or immoral conduct may affect a defendant's credibility (People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 262, mot to amend remittitur granted 36 N.Y.2d 857, cert denied 423 U.S. 861). The defendant's prior convictions, especially those involving theft-related crimes, were relevant to the issue of his credibility (see, People v. Wendel, 123 A.D.2d 410, 411; People v. Winfield, 145 A.D.2d 449, 450; People v. Sandoval, supra, at 377). Under the circumstances, the trial court properly exercised its discretion to permit cross-examination of the defendant regarding his prior convictions.
The defendant's contention on appeal that the court should have conducted a hearing on the issue of the interpreters' qualifications is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in determining that the interpreters were qualified (see, People v Catron, 143 A.D.2d 468; People v. Reddish, 156 A.D.2d 195; People v. Frazier, 159 A.D.2d 278). Furthermore, there was no showing of any significant or serious error in translation which would warrant reversal (see, People v. Reddish, supra; People v Frazier, supra).
The court properly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge. The defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the uncalled witness "was in a position to have knowledge" about a material issue in the case (see, People v Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532, 537; People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424).
The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's summation comments is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Larsen, 157 A.D.2d 672). In any event, in light of the court's prompt action in sustaining defense counsel's objection to the challenged remarks and issuing curative instructions to the jury, any prejudice was eliminated (People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Santucci, JJ., concur.