Opinion
March 21, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Bamberger, J.).
Defendant was convicted following a jury trial at which a police officer testified that defendant was observed selling narcotics. Defendant now challenges the court's Sandoval ruling, in which cross-examination was permitted as to two felony and three misdemeanor convictions in 1977 and 1979, without inquiry into the nature of or the underlying facts of any of those crimes. However, by failing to object to the Sandoval ruling, defendant has waived appellate review as a matter of law. Indeed defendant requested the Sandoval compromise as charged. In view of this limited inquiry which was permitted, we would find no infirmity in the Sandoval ruling on the ground that the subject convictions were too remote in time. (See, e.g., People v Ortiz, 156 A.D.2d 197, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 740; see, People v Yeaden, 156 A.D.2d 208, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 872.)
The charge as given, although not tracking the suggested language of the Criminal Jury Instructions (1 CJI[NY] 6.20, at 248), sufficiently conveyed the import of the phrasing requested by defense counsel.
We find no basis to reverse for the court's failure to augment its charge by stating that reasonable doubt can arise from a lack of evidence as well as from the evidence presented. (See, People v Roldos, 161 A.D.2d 610, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 864.) Finally, the People concede on the basis of our ruling in People v Snyder ( 154 A.D.2d 269, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 776), that counts three and four of the indictment, charging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, stem directly from charges for criminal sale, and should be dismissed in the interest of justice.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.