Opinion
November 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, in making its Sandoval ruling, the trial court properly weighed the competing considerations and determined that the probative value of cross-examination concerning the prior crimes on the issue of the defendant's tendency to place his self-interest above that of society outweighed any prejudice ( see, People v. Bristow, 234 A.D.2d 378; see also, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Cuesta, 177 A.D.2d 639).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.