Opinion
March 2, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Savarese, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial under Indictment No. 13538/89 because the trial court impermissibly ruled that the prosecutor could cross-examine him about the details underlying a prior drug-related felony conviction (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). He further contends that the adjudication of violation of probation under Indictment No. 12539/88 must also be reversed because it was premised solely on his more recent conviction.
While a "Sandoval compromise" could have been sensibly applied with respect to the defendant's prior drug-related felony conviction (see, People v Hicks, 88 A.D.2d 519; see also, People v Padilla, 123 A.D.2d 364; cf., People v Mannery, 151 A.D.2d 697), in light of the defendant's other involvement with the criminal justice system about which the People could properly have made inquiry, we are not persuaded that the ruling at issue unduly affected the defendant's decision not to testify in his own behalf (cf., People v Bearthea, 171 A.D.2d 751) or that, in light of the quality and quantity of the evidence against the defendant, a more appropriate Sandoval ruling would have otherwise affected the result (see, People v Hicks, supra).
In light of our determination that the judgment under Indictment No. 13538/89 should stand, the defendant's limited challenge under Indictment No. 12539/88 is without merit. Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.