Opinion
May 14, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record amply supports the hearing court's determination that the pretrial photographic and lineup identification procedures were not unduly suggestive (People v. Harmon, 51 N.Y.2d 863; People v. Galarza, 126 A.D.2d 666). Accordingly, suppression was properly denied.
With regard to the trial court's Sandoval ruling, the defendant argues that the court erred in allowing him to be cross-examined with respect to prior convictions which were similar to those charged in the instant case. We disagree. It is well settled that "the mere fact that the acts used as cross-examination material are similar in nature to the conduct alleged at trial does not, in and of itself, mandate preclusion (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282)" (People v. Hall, 99 A.D.2d 843).
Furthermore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see also, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15; see also, People v. Bleakley, supra).
Finally, we have reviewed the defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86; CPL 240.44). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.