Opinion
June 29, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.).
The evidence presented against defendant was overwhelming and the credibility determinations of the jury in connection with defendant's claim of self-defense are supported by the record.
The court's Sandoval ruling permitting limited questioning in connection with three of four prior felony convictions, with additional limited questioning if and when defendant's own testimony opened the door thereto, was an appropriate exercise of discretion, balancing the probative value of evidence of defendant's prior convictions against the risk of undue prejudice ( see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 375). Defendant's specialization in assault did not preclude the prosecutor from eliciting the nature of defendant's prior convictions ( see, People v. Couvertier, 222 A.D.2d 239, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 971), and the prosecutor complied with the court's initial ruling precluding admission of any underlying facts unless and until defendant opened the door by placing the issues of his motive and intent into dispute ( see, People v. Martinez, 232 A.D.2d 230, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 926; People v. Lugo, 202 A.D.2d 248).
Defendant's request for a missing witness charge, made after the close of evidence, was untimely ( People v. Nazario, 254 A.D.2d 10, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 1052), and was properly denied.
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
We have considered and rejected defendant's additional claims of error.
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.