Opinion
June 4, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). The mere fact that a defendant has committed crimes similar to the one charged does not automatically preclude the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes ( see, People v. Mattiace, supra; People v. Pavao, supra; People v. McClam, 225 A.D.2d 799). The court's ruling that the prosecutor could inquire into the dates and charges of eight misdemeanors, including an attempted assault which the defendant alleged was too similar to the present allegations, did not prevent the defendant from asserting an adequate defense ( see, People v. McClainin, 178 A.D.2d 495).
Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.