Opinion
August 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's' contention that he was prejudiced by the court's Sandoval ruling because it discouraged him from testifying on his own behalf. The court acted well within its discretion in permitting the People to inquire into the defendant's prior conviction of two felonies and various misdemeanors, without identifying their underlying facts (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377; People v. Carrasquillo, 204 A.D.2d 735). The court also properly exercised its discretion in ruling that the People would be allowed to inquire as to whether the defendant had, on occasion, used different aliases and different dates of birth (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 461-462).
Similarly without merit is the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury charge on criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser-included offense of burglary in the second degree. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v. Martin, 59 N.Y.2d 704, 705), no reasonable view of that evidence would permit a finding that the defendant committed the lesser, but not the greater, offense (see, People v. Van Norstrand, 85 N.Y.2d 131, 135; People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61, 63; see also, CPL 300.50).
O'Brien, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.