Opinion
May 17, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's assertions on appeal, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when rendering its Sandoval ruling (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The mere similarity between the prior convictions and the crime charged is insufficient to preclude their use on cross-examination (see, People v Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v Adams, 174 A.D.2d 626). Further, the defendant's assertion that error was committed because the court failed to instruct the jury that the testimony of a police officer was entitled to no more credibility than that of any other witness is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, were we to reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, we would find the alleged error harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.