Opinion
March 15, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). The mere fact that a defendant had committed crimes similar to the one charged did not automatically warrant precluding the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes ( see, People v. Mattiace, supra; People v. Pavao, supra; People v. McClam, 225 A.D.2d 799).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal.
S. Miller, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.