Opinion
June 20, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.).
In this prosecution for burglary, a photograph showing the window through which defendant entered the premises, which also depicted a window gate which had been enlarged following the commission of the crime, was properly admitted into evidence. Although the photograph was not an exact depiction of the gate on the night of the crime, insofar as additional fencing was added by the time that the photograph was taken, this difference was properly explained and was not prejudicial (see, Saporito v City of New York, 14 N.Y.2d 474).
The trial court properly balanced the probative value of defendant's prior convictions for burglary and criminal mischief against the risk of undue prejudice (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). We find no abuse of discretion in permitting inquiry into the convictions, without inquiry into the underlying facts. The mere fact that defendant specializes in a certain type of crime does not insulate him from impeachment (see, People v Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882). The present juxtaposition of theft related crimes did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Perez, 166 A.D.2d 166, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 989).
Finally, we find no error in the prosecutor's rhetorical comment on summation that defendant's theory of the case was tantamount to a "fairy tale" (see, People v Stokes, 165 A.D.2d 763, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 991).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.