Opinion
February 18, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court's Sandoval ruling constituted reversible error. We disagree. By allowing the prosecutor to inquire into the underlying facts of the defendant's previous petit larceny and resisting arrest convictions, the court properly struck a balance between the probative value of this evidence as to the defendant's credibility and the potential for unfair prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 375; People v Blue, 178 A.D.2d 539). The defendant's previous conviction for petit larceny, a crime involving individual dishonesty, directly bears on his credibility (see, People v. Sandoval, supra, at 375-376; People v. Young, 178 A.D.2d 571), and his resisting arrest conviction showed that he had placed his own interests above those of society (see, People v. McClainin, 178 A.D.2d 495). Accordingly, we find that the court providently exercised its discretion in permitting inquiry into the underlying facts of these crimes in the event the defendant chose to testify in his own behalf (see, People v Young, supra).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.