Opinion
Submitted September 21, 2001.
October 15, 2001.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered December 9, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tonya Plank of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N Y (Leonard Joblove and Monique Ferrell of counsel), for respondent.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
In this case, the defendant was accused of breaking into a store and robbing its owners with a knife. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), was a provident exercise of its discretion (see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269; People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882). The defendant's prior convictions were relevant on the issue of his credibility, since they demonstrated his willingness to place his own interests above those of society. The similarity of the defendant's prior convictions to the crimes charged did not mandate preclusion of cross-examination as to the underlying facts of those prior convictions (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Miller, 199 A.D.2d 422). The Supreme Court properly balanced the probative value of the defendant's prior convictions against any prejudicial effect (see, People v. Matthews, 68 N.Y.2d 118). Although the defendant contends that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling deterred him from testifying, the ruling did not prevent the presentation of an alibi defense to the jury (see, People v. Carter, 106 A.D.2d 654).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.