Opinion
March 20, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court properly permitted the People to call the defendant's parole officer as a rebuttal witness after the defendant had denied on cross-examination that he had spoken to her about his involvement in the crime charged. The parole officer's rebuttal testimony with regard to the defendant's making of an inculpatory statement was properly admitted for the purposes of impeachment (see, People v. Maerling, 64 N.Y.2d 134, 140; People v. Jones, 134 A.D.2d 915, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1028; cf., People v. Ames, 126 A.D.2d 731, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1000). Finally, the court's Sandoval ruling constituted a proper exercise of discretion. Brown, J.P., Eiber, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.