Opinion
December 28, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Initially, the defendant argues that the court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress a weapon found during the effectuation of his arrest. We disagree. Since the defendant failed to pursue the issue of probable cause to arrest him before the hearing court, he cannot now rely upon this issue as a ground for reversal in this court (see, People v Jackson, 118 A.D.2d 731).
In any event, the record reveals that the defendant, who was arrested in another person's apartment, failed to prove that he possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in those premises (see, People v Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160; People v Delaney, 121 A.D.2d 650, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 913). Therefore, the defendant lacked the requisite standing to contest the propriety of the police action.
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial due to the court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The record establishes that the trial court engaged in a balancing of the probative value and the prejudicial effect of an inquiry into the defendant's prior felony convictions (see, People v Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236), and we perceive no abuse of discretion in its ruling (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Brock, 125 A.D.2d 401, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 824).
Upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those set forth in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Niehoff, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.