Opinion
October 10, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.).
The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in considering the nature of defendant's 22 prior convictions for the purpose of balancing the prejudicial and probative values thereof, permitting cross-examination regarding only the existence of five prior petit larceny convictions, as well as the existence and underlying facts of one attempted robbery conviction and one criminal possession of stolen property conviction ( People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Crimes involving theft are highly relevant to credibility issues ( supra, at 377), and mere similarity of prior convictions to the crime charged does not preclude cross-examination thereon ( People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). While there is no indication in the record that specific consideration was given to the underlying facts of defendant's prior conviction for criminal possession of stolen property, there is also no indication in the record that elicitation of the underlying facts would have resulted in undue prejudice to defendant. In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant, any error is harmless ( cf., People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.