Opinion
April 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was observed by police selling what appeared to be crack cocaine to several passers-by. The defendant was arrested after he dropped a plastic bag containing 11 vials of crack cocaine and attempted to leave the area.
The defendant argues that the court erred in rendering its Sandoval ruling. However, a Sandoval ruling is addressed to the sound discretion of the hearing court and is reviewed only for an improvident exercise thereof (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). We find none here. A review of the record reveals that the court correctly weighed the competing factors when it allowed only one of the defendant's nine prior convictions to be inquired into during cross-examination (see, People v Pavao, supra; People v Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; People v Sandoval, supra). Further, the mere similarity between the prior conviction and the crime charged was insufficient to preclude its use on cross-examination (see, People v Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v Adams, 174 A.D.2d 626; People v Mannery, 151 A.D.2d 697).
Similarly, we find no merit to the defendant's assertion that the identification testimony of an undercover police officer should have been precluded due to the People's failure to serve a CPL 710.30 notice that it would be used against him in court. The undercover officer's identification of the defendant immediately after his arrest was merely confirmatory and, therefore, not subject to CPL 710.30 (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445; People v Roberts, 79 N.Y.2d 964; People v Newball, 76 N.Y.2d 587; People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921). Similarly, the undercover officer's viewing of the defendant later that evening at the police station was mere happenstance and not the result of a prearranged police identification procedure. Therefore, it was not subject to CPL 710.30 (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v Ravenell, 179 A.D.2d 788).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.