Opinion
October 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Albert Williams, J.).
Defendant's claim concerning the procedure the court used at the Sandoval hearing is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05). Were we to review it in the interest of justice, we would find it meritless as the court properly invited defense counsel to first make a Sandoval application, and then heard the prosecutor's request. Defense counsel had every opportunity to make her arguments. As to the merits of the court's Sandoval ruling, the court struck an appropriate balance ( see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 375) by permitting inquiry only into the fact that defendant had one prior felony and six prior misdemeanors. The court precluded all other questions concerning the crimes of which defendant had previously been convicted and also precluded cross-examination of defendant regarding his prior use of aliases. While defendant claims he would have taken the stand but for the Sandoval ruling, he "cannot shield himself from impeachment on the basis of the very frequency of his offenses" ( People v. Brown, 161 A.D.2d 458, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 938).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.