Opinion
January 20, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant's contention that, in rendering its Sandoval ruling, the trial court failed to fulfill the duty to exercise its discretion and weigh the probative value of evidence of prior criminal acts against the prejudicial impact thereof ( see, People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). However, under the circumstances of this case, that error was harmless ( see, People v. Mitchell, 209 A.D.2d 443; People v. Moore, 156 A.D.2d 394).
The defendant's contentions that Brady and Rosario material were withheld from him ( see, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83; People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286) are without merit ( see, People v. Finley, 190 A.D.2d 859).
The defendant's remaining contentions in his main brief and supplemental pro se brief are without merit.
Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.