Opinion
October 20, 1997
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by permitting the prosecution to elicit testimony regarding the defendant's prior conviction for attempted possession of marihuana in the second degree in order to impeach his credibility ( see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The defendant's prior conviction was indicative of his willingness to place his own interest before the interests of society ( see, People v. Beverly, 220 A.D.2d 881; People v. Gray, 198 A.D.2d 3, and 84 N.Y.2d 709; People v. Coe, 165 A.D.2d 721), and the similarity of the prior conviction to the crime charged does not automatically shield the defendant from cross-examination as to the prior conviction ( see, People v Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275; People v. Thomas, 221 A.D.2d 388).
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 that the defendant was in possession of the marihuana ( see, People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624; People v. Evans, 186 A.D.2d 815) and that he had knowledge of its weight ( see, People v. Tineo, 232 A.D.2d 667; People v. Love, 204 A.D.2d 97, affd 84 N.Y.2d 917). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit ( see, CPL 400.21), or do not warrant reversal ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
O'Brien, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.