Opinion
June 10, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On his direct examination, the defendant testified that the instant incident occurred while he was on parole, and that the arresting officer decided to arrest him only after the officer learned that the defendant was on parole. Therefore, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by permitting the prosecutor to attack the defendant's credibility on cross examination by asking him a few questions concerning the effect of a conviction in this case on his parole status (see, People v Chaitin, 61 N.Y.2d 683, 684-685; People v Brown, 157 A.D.2d 790, 791; People v Watts, 154 A.D.2d 723, 724; People v McCullough, 141 A.D.2d 856, 858; cf., People v Astacio, 131 A.D.2d 684).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), and in any event, are without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.