Opinion
June 14, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the presentation to the Grand Jury, in response to a Grand Juror's inquiry as to why the defendant had been unable to attend work on a given day, the witness, the defendant's wife, responded that the defendant had been under arrest on an unrelated matter. The Grand Jury minutes indicate that despite the Assistant District Attorney's failure to deliver any curative instructions, this error alone did not arise to the level of egregiousness necessary to support a finding that the integrity of the Grand Jury process was impaired (see, People v. Darby, 75 N.Y.2d 449, 454-455; People v. Skye, 167 A.D.2d 892; cf., People v. Salisbury, 182 A.D.2d 1105).
In its Sandoval ruling the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that the People would be permitted to inquire into the underlying facts of the defendant's prior conviction of petit larceny, but not into the fact of the conviction itself. Convictions involving theft of property are highly relevant on the issue of credibility (see, People v. Natal, 144 A.D.2d 587, cert denied 498 U.S. 862), and the probative value of this evidence outweighed the danger of prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142).
The factual conclusion of the Supreme Court at the Wade hearing that the defendant's testimony was incredible is supported by the record, and should therefore not be disturbed on appeal (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Perkins, 177 A.D.2d 720).
During cross-examination by the defense attorney, the complaining witness testified that when he gave the investigating officer a description of his attacker, the officer "took the album to look". The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial predicated upon this brief mention of an "album" (see, CPL 280.10; Matter of Plummer v. Rothwax, 63 N.Y.2d 243, 250; People v. Beckum, 156 A.D.2d 571). We note that trial counsel was offered a prompt curative instruction by the trial court, but declined the offer (see, People v. Blackshear, 112 A.D.2d 1044).
The defendant's assertion that his sentence was excessive is without merit.
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.