Opinion
April 7, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant's conviction was not tainted by the postverdict statement of one of the jurors that she abandoned her position in favor of acquittal and voted in favor of the defendant's conviction only because she was ill and exhausted (see, People v De Lucia, 20 N.Y.2d 275; People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 393; People v. Foti, 99 A.D.2d 517). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence. The evidence established all of the necessary elements of the crimes charged, and the credibility of the complainant's eyewitness testimony and of the defendant's alibi were questions for the jury to decide (see, CPL 70.20; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v. Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116, 122; People v. Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445).
Finally, no error occurred as a result of the prosecutor's impeachment of the defendant by evidence of his prior bad acts or his reference to those acts in summation. The prosecutor's questioning was conducted in accordance with the court's Sandoval rulings, and the court carefully limited the extent of the impeachment. The defendant's prior convictions were probative on the issue of his credibility as a witness, outweighing in this instance the risk of prejudice, and it was therefore not improper for the court to permit the prosecutor to question the defendant with respect to the acts underlying these convictions (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Harvey, 111 A.D.2d 185). Since no objection was ever made during the prosecutor's summation to certain of his comments claimed to be objectionable, any claim of error of law with respect thereto is unpreserved for review (CPL 470.05; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.