Opinion
November 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fertig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court permissibly exercised its discretion in ruling upon his Sandoval application. The record reveals that the court permitted only limited cross-examination into the underlying facts of a youthful offender adjudication involving a robbery and a petit larceny conviction, both of which were directly probative of the defendant's honesty and trustworthiness (see, People v Cowan, 193 A.D.2d 753; People v Alford, 178 A.D.2d 418; People v Dixon, 172 A.D.2d 768).
The defendant's contention that the court impermissibly curtailed his cross-examination of the complaining witness is without merit (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; People v Beckett, 186 A.D.2d 209). The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.