Opinion
March 27, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting the provision thereof that the terms of imprisonment are to run consecutively and substituting therefor a provision that they shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court's Sandoval ruling was improper in that it allowed inquiry as to 23 of his past convictions is without merit. "That the number of prior convictions ruled admissible was large and that some of those prior convictions were remote in time are matters of substance that may properly be considered by the trial court but are not appropriate bases for [an appellate court] to second-guess the trial court's conclusion (see, People v. Patterson, 88 A.D.2d 694, affd 59 N.Y.2d 794)" (People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459). Here, the court properly balanced the appropriate factors in reaching its determination.
The prosecutor's conduct, both on summation and upon cross-examination of the defendant, while worthy of criticism (see, People v. Parks, 120 A.D.2d 920, 921; People v. Williams, 112 A.D.2d 177; People v. Ochoa, 86 A.D.2d 637), did not serve to deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial. Thus, reversal is not warranted on this basis (see, People v. Williams, supra).
The sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Lawrence and Goldstein, JJ., concur.