Opinion
March 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).
The record does not support the conclusion that defendant was prejudiced by the trial court exercising discretion in imposing a time limit on each attorney's examination of the third panel of prospective jurors (see, People v. Jean, 75 N.Y.2d 744). Defendant's argument that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court, although not requested by defendant to do so, told prospective jurors that "no inference" was to be drawn in the event defendant did not testify is not preserved for review as a matter of law, no timely objection thereto having been made (People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836). Were we to review the issue in the interest of justice, we would find that any error in this regard was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (People v. Koberstein, 66 N.Y.2d 989). Nor do we find any merit to defendant's argument that the court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted inquiry into the underlying facts of two drug convictions, as well as defendant's conviction for a misdemeanor, without inquiry into the underlying facts thereof, did not appropriately weigh the probative worth of that evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice or was otherwise an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Grice, 177 A.D.2d 271, 272, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 857).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.