Opinion
October 3, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court issued a pretrial Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecutor to inquire as to whether the defendant had been convicted of more than one prior felony, but not as to the underlying facts of those prior convictions. However, when the defendant testified and denied that he had been convicted of more than one felony in the past, the prosecutor requested a modification of the Sandoval ruling. The court properly modified its Sandoval ruling to permit the prosecution to inquire further regarding the prior convictions (see, People v Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638; see also, People v. Johnson, 203 A.D.2d 588).
Also without merit is the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to inquire of the defendant as to prior bad acts committed against the complainant. The court had originally ruled that the prosecution could not use evidence that the defendant had beaten the complainant on several prior occasions to impeach the defendant's credibility on the ground that the evidence was too prejudicial. Nevertheless, once the defendant testified on his direct examination that he "would never do anything to hurt that woman", he put his character in issue, and the People were entitled to rebut this evidence by asking the defendant about his previous acts against the complainant (see, People v. Klos, 190 A.D.2d 754; see also, People v. Bravo, 154 A.D.2d 690).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Gaines, 74 N.Y.2d 358, 362; see also, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381; People v. Cowan, 184 A.D.2d 778).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when, because of counsel's failure to give him adequate notice of the Grand Jury hearing date, he was not present at the hearing, and was not afforded the opportunity to testify despite his request pursuant to CPL 190.50. The record indicates that both he and his counsel were notified at the arraignment of the date, time, and place of the Grand Jury hearing.
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.