Opinion
Submitted September 9, 1999
October 25, 1999
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in its Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371 ), which permitted the prosecutor to impeach him with underlying facts of two prior robbery convictions. We disagree. "Convictions involving theft, such as robbery, are highly relevant to the issue of credibility because they demonstrate the defendant's willingness to deliberately further his self-interest at the expense of society" (People v. Creel, 215 A.D.2d 577, 578 ). Moreover, any similarities between the crimes charged and the defendant's convictions did not compel preclusion (see, People v. Creel, supra;People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282 ). The court engaged in a proper balancing between the probative value of the convictions for impeachment purposes and the prejudicial effect of such impeachment upon the defendant (see, People v. Sandoval, supra).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
THOMPSON, J.P., SULLIVAN, ALTMAN, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.