Opinion
Submitted March 6, 2001.
April 2, 2001.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered June 16, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Shulamit Rosenblum, Robert N. Kaye of counsel), for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rendering its Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The court weighed the competing factors and limited inquiry on cross-examination of the defendant to three theft-related felonies while prohibiting discussion of the underlying facts (see, People v. Walken, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459; People v. Sandoval, supra). The mere similarity between the prior felony convictions and the crime charged was insufficient to preclude their use on cross-examination (see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269; People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.