Opinion
May 24, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as one of the perpetrators who broke into the complainants' home at gunpoint and robbed them. Although only one witness was able to identify the accused, the defendant signed a detailed written statement confessing to his participation in the charged crimes, and was in possession of some of the stolen property. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We also find no merit to the defendant's claim that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling was an improvident exercise of discretion. Evidence that the defendant had committed two prior robberies was highly relevant on the issue of his credibility (see, People v. McBride, 255 A.D.2d 459; People v. Martin, 221 A.D.2d 373; People v. Natal, 144 A.D.2d 587, affd 75 N.Y.2d 379), and the probative value of this evidence outweighed the danger of prejudice to him (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282).
In view of the serious nature of this offense and the defendant's prior criminal history, the sentence imposed is neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review.
Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.