Opinion
April 11, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant with respect to a prior shooting incident similar to the crime for which he was on trial, was not abuse of discretion. The earlier incident occurred only two days before the crime charged and demonstrated a disregard for the safety of others in furtherance of the defendant's own interests thereby impacting directly upon the issue of the defendant's credibility (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377). The similarity between the prior crime and the crime charged does not automatically preclude inquiry (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Torres, 110 A.D.2d 794, 795).
We also find that the spontaneous testimony of an eyewitness to the crime, which referred to a prior criminal act of the defendant precluded by the Sandoval ruling, does not mandate reversal of his conviction. The remark was a single isolated response which was not solicited by the prosecutor. Moreover, the court issued prompt curative instructions and there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. Therefore, the error was harmless (see, People v. Kelly, 38 A.D.2d 1004; People v. Jackson, 20 A.D.2d 918; cf., People v. Cruz, 72 A.D.2d 748). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Weinstein, JJ., concur.