Opinion
April 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred W. Eggert, J.).
Defendant was convicted of the sale of crack cocaine to undercover police officers. Balancing the probative value of evidence of defendant's prior arson conviction against the potential for undue prejudice the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its Sandoval ruling, allowing an inquiry into the underlying facts thereof (see, People v Mayrant, 43 N.Y.2d 236; People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371).
Defendant's objection to the court's instruction on intent is unpreserved. However, were we to review in the interest of justice we would conclude that the charge as a whole conveyed the appropriate principles of law (People v Ortiz, 176 A.D.2d 681, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 830) and further that the specific instruction was appropriate (see, People v Getch, 50 N.Y.2d 456, 465). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the imposition of sentence (see, People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.