Opinion
March 8, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that, should he choose to testify, the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine him with respect to five of six prior felony convictions. The record reflects that the court precluded the People from eliciting either the crime charged, the underlying facts, or the sentence imposed. In doing so, the court properly took into consideration the prejudicial effect the admission of such evidence would have had on the jury and on the defendant's decision to testify (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455; People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Masas, 244 A.D.2d 433; People v. Roman, 182 A.D.2d 519, 520).
We deplore the continuous failure of the Assistant District Attorney to follow the admonitions of the trial court regarding his improper summation comments. However, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and the court's curative instructions, reversal is not warranted (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal.
Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.