Opinion
December 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in its Sandoval ruling. He argues that the court failed to give adequate weight to the prejudicial effect of allowing the prosecution to inquire into his prior convictions ( see, People v Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455; People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). We disagree.
The defendant is not shielded from cross-examination merely because he specializes in one particular form of criminal conduct ( see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v Thomas, 198 A.D.2d 531, 532; People v Smith, 197 A.D.2d 717; People v Jay, 187 A.D.2d 454, 455). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in precluding inquiry into the defendant's convictions related to assault and other non-theft related crimes.
The defendant also argues that the prosecutor's cross-examination of his alibi witnesses as to their pre-trial silence was reversible error. This argument is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit as the prosecutor may inquire of alibi witnesses with respect to their failure to come forward with exculpatory information once a foundation is laid as was done in this case ( see, People v Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.