Opinion
December 28, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the trial court's Sandoval ruling constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. It is well settled that the prosecution may inquire as to the underlying facts of a youthful offender adjudication to impeach the defendant's credibility, so long as the ultimate disposition is not elicited (see, People v Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 176; People v Kyser, 147 A.D.2d 590). Here, the facts underlying the defendant's youthful offender adjudication demonstrated his willingness to place his own interests ahead of those of society, thus directly pertaining to the issue of credibility. Furthermore, the court's decision to permit the prosecutor to elicit that the defendant had a prior felony conviction, without the jury being apprised that the conviction was for a crime similar to that charged herein, avoided any undue prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Ricks, 135 A.D.2d 844, 845). Thus we find no reason to disturb the determination of the hearing court (see, People v Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236).
We find that the Supreme Court's summary denial of the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence seized from the defendant without first holding a Mapp hearing was proper since his motion papers failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to warrant that a hearing be conducted (see, CPL 710.60; People v Reynolds, 71 N.Y.2d 552; People v Montalvo, 182 A.D.2d 779; People v Pavesi, 144 A.D.2d 392).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641), or devoid of merit (see, People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708-709; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.