Opinion
March 2, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the People adduced sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the property which he and his companions stole from the complainant's variety store had a market value in excess of $1,500 (see generally, People v Irrizari, 5 N.Y.2d 142; People v. Washington, 110 A.D.2d 797). Moreover, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we conclude that there was sufficient proof to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the court's Sandoval ruling. The record demonstrates that the trial court engaged in a thorough balancing of the probative value and the prejudicial effect of an inquiry into the defendant's prior convictions (see, People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236), and we discern no abuse of discretion in the compromise ruling which it made (see, e.g., People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881).
The defendant's remaining contention concerning the improper release of evidence by the police has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Washington, supra), nor do we find that the defendant suffered any prejudice as a result of the alleged error (see, e.g., People v. Cruz, 99 A.D.2d 406; People v Angelo, 93 A.D.2d 264). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.