Opinion
April 13, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant with regard to only 1 of 3 theft-related prior felony convictions and only 1 of 3 prior theft-related misdemeanor convictions (cf., People v Hicks, 88 A.D.2d 519). Moreover, with regard to the two convictions for which cross-examination was allowed, the trial court minimized the impact of the defendant's record by prohibiting inquiry into the nature of those convictions or the underlying facts (see, People v Padilla, 123 A.D.2d 364, appeal denied 69 N.Y.2d 715; People v Jackson, 108 A.D.2d 757). Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.