Opinion
March 7, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.).
The trial court duly balanced the probative value against the possible prejudicial effect of defendant's prior convictions (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), and appropriately exercised its discretion in permitting limited cross-examination of defendant, should he testify, regarding two prior convictions for attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. As ruled by the trial court, a defendant may not shield himself from impeachment solely on the basis of his tendency to specialize in a particular field of criminal behavior (People v Reyes, 171 A.D.2d 461, 462, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 999). The record indicates that the trial court, properly exercising its discretionary power, specifically rejected defendant's suggestion of a Sandoval ruling that only the fact of defendant's two prior felony convictions might be elicited, and in light of the overwhelming evidence in this case, it is unlikely that even with the Sandoval ruling suggested by defendant the result would have been different (see, People v. Hicks, 88 A.D.2d 519, 520).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.