Opinion
December 11, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J., at suppression hearing; Frederic Berman, J., at jury trial and sentence).
Portions of the codefendant's plea allocution were properly admitted as declarations against penal interest ( see, People v. Thomas, 68 N.Y.2d 194, 197, cert denied 480 U.S. 948). The challenged portions of the allocution, in which the codefendant referred to the participation of another person, were not superfluous to the guilty plea. On the contrary, they were against the codefendant's penal interest because, under the circumstances of the allocution, the conduct of the other person was necessary to establish the elements of the crime to which the codefendant pleaded guilty ( see, Penal Law § 110.00, 140.30 Penal [3]).
The court's Sandoval ruling carefully balanced the relevant factors and was a proper exercise of discretion in view of the probative value of defendant's theft-related convictions ( see, People v. Flocker, 223 A.D.2d 451, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 847).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ. [ See, 164 Misc.2d 749.]