Petitioner sought to have the witness answer questions pertaining to the legal definition of "conviction," apparently in an attempt to prove that because he had not yet been sentenced when the misbehavior report was prepared, he had not, at that point, been "convicted" of any crime, and thus could not be subject to the rule which permits "departmental sanctions . . . based upon a criminal conviction" ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [a] [emphasis added]). The Hearing Officer properly denied petitioner's efforts to question that lay witness as to her knowledge of a legal definition of "conviction" ( see People v. Tirico, 227 AD2d 356, 357, lv denied 89 NY2d 930; see generally People v. Batashure, 75 NY2d 306, 310). In any event, because petitioner clearly stood convicted of a crime ( see CPL 1.20), notwithstanding the absence — at that point — of a judgment of conviction against him ( see CPL 1.20), the testimony he sought on this point would have been immaterial.