Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's Sandoval ruling was proper. Prior crimes are not automatically excluded from evidence just because they are similar to the crime with which the defendant is charged (People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). Here, the prior crime involved a theft which was highly relevant to the defendant's credibility and his willingness to place his interests above those of society's (People v Natal, 144 A.D.2d 587, affd 75 N.Y.2d 379). Such crimes are usually relevant whenever they have been committed (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.