Opinion
January 16, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.
The Supreme Court's pretrial Sandoval ruling constituted an improvident exercise of discretion (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The court ruled that in the event the defendant testified, the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine him with respect to admissions he had allegedly made to the police in which he inculpated himself in a series of crimes for which he had not been charged. In addition, the court ruled that the defendant would not be free to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination (US Const 5th, 14th Amends). Irrespective of whether this ruling constituted error as a matter of law (cf., People v. Betts, 70 N.Y.2d 289 [error to preclude defendant from invoking Fifth Amendment in response to questions concerning unrelated pending criminal charge]), we conclude that it constituted an improvident exercise of discretion and cannot be considered harmless (see, People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236, 240-241). A new trial is therefore necessary. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.