Opinion
February 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's Sandoval ruling does not warrant reversal of the judgment of conviction. It is well settled that trial courts have broad discretion in determining, on the issue of the defendant's credibility, whether the probative value of evidence of other crimes outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; see also, People v Pally, 131 A.D.2d 889). Here, since the defendant's prior conviction involved theft of property, evidence of that crime was highly probative of the defendant's credibility and his willingness to deliberately further his own self-interest at the expense of society's interests (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377; see also, People v. Pally, supra; People v. Singletary, 116 A.D.2d 604). Accordingly, the trial court's ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v. Sandoval, supra, at 377; see also, People v. Kuethman, 156 A.D.2d 472, 473).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; see also, People v Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 1050; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.