Opinion
April 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frank Blangiardo, J.).
The evidence adduced at trial established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant stole a ring from a decoy unit transit officer. The court was correct in its Sandoval (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) ruling with respect to 1981 convictions for second degree robbery and for sexual abuse involving six different victims. The court ruled that inquiry into the facts underlying the robbery conviction would be permitted but that any reference to the sexual abuse conviction would be unduly prejudicial. As to the robbery conviction, defendant has not met his burden "of demonstrating that the prejudicial effect of the admission of evidence thereof for impeachment purposes would so far outweigh the probative worth of such evidence on the issue of credibility as to warrant its exclusion" (People v. Sandoval, supra, at 378). As this court has observed, "that a defendant may specialize in one type of illegal activity * * * does not ipso facto shield such defendant from having prior convictions used to impeach his credibility" (People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882; see also, People v. Weeks, 156 A.D.2d 133). The court cannot be said to have abused its discretion in permitting reference to a similar, prior offense for purposes of impeachment.
Defendant's contention that the court's closing instructions deprived him of a fair trial is without merit. In view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, any error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.