Opinion
December 2, 1985
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Leggett, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The court did not err in denying defendant's request to allow the jury to view the defendant's car. The defendant could not satisfy the threshold prerequisite that such a viewing would be helpful in the determination of a "material factual issue" (CPL 270.50; People v McCurdy, 86 A.D.2d 493). Therefore, no abuse of discretion occurred.
Proof of the commission of crimes which indicates a voluntary willingness or disposition of a defendant to place the advancement of his own self-interest above the mores or interests of society may be relevant to suggest his readiness to do so again on the witness stand (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not commit reversible error in its Sandoval ruling (People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142).
Since defendant failed to object to the People's use of a document during cross-examination to refresh his recollection, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Jenkins, 47 N.Y.2d 722; People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v Smith, 108 A.D.2d 763). In any event, there is no merit to defendant's contention that the People made use of extrinsic evidence to support a collateral matter where, as here, the document in question was used solely to refresh defendant's recollection during cross-examination. Further, it is well settled that the nature and extent of cross-examination is subject to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241). No abuse of discretion occurred in the instant case. Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.