Opinion
June 10, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion, nor did it deprive the defendant of a fair trial. After considering the probative value of the defendant's eight prior arrests and five theft-related convictions, as well as the prejudicial effect of this evidence, the court ruled that should the defendant testify, he could be cross-examined concerning only two prior convictions, including the underlying facts.
It is well settled that the exclusion of cross-examination concerning prior convictions is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371 ; People v Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274). In this case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, People v Branch, 155 A.D.2d 475; People v Torres, 110 A.D.2d 794). Moreover, that the prior crimes, which were both theft-related, may be similar to the crime charged herein did not compel their exclusion (see, People v Torres, supra). The commission of crimes involving dishonesty are highly relevant to a defendant's credibility (see, People v Sandoval, supra). Further, that the defendant may specialize in one area of criminal activity will not automatically shield him from cross-examination as to those prior convictions (see, People v Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v Monahan, 114 A.D.2d 380).
Finally, in light of the defendant's extensive criminal history, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.