Opinion
February 6, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).
The court's Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into eight of defendant's ten misdemeanor convictions and one felony while precluding inquiry into their underlying facts, constituted a proper exercise of discretion, and the mere fact that some of the prior crimes were similar to the crime for which defendant was charged in the instant case did not bar the prosecution from using them to impeach his credibility ( People v. Ellis, 183 A.D.2d 534, affd 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v. Arroyo, 194 A.D.2d 406, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 751). Moreover, during his testimony, defendant opened the door to further inquiry ( People v. Rodriguez, 85 N.Y.2d 586, 591). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion, and find that the sentencing court did not rely on uncharged crimes.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.