Opinion
2002-00431.
Decided December 8, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered January 2, 2002, convicting him of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, (Jonathan Garvin of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, (Leonard Joblove and Scott J. Splittgerber of counsel; Stephen M. Dolben on the brief), for respondent.
Before: BARRY A. COZIER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in its Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). A defendant is not shielded from cross examination merely because he or she specializes in one particular form of criminal conduct ( see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 208; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Carrion, 265 A.D.2d 564, 565). In addition, the age of some of the defendant's prior convictions did not, by itself, mandate preclusion ( see People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459; People v. Patterson, 88 A.D.2d 694, affd 59 N.Y.2d 794; People v. Simmons, 213 A.D.2d 433, 434; People v. Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881).
The defendant's contention that his sentencing as a persistent felony offender violated his constitutional rights to notice and a jury trial pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey ( 530 U.S. 466) is without merit ( see People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, cert denied 534 U.S. 899).
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.