Opinion
March 26, 1992
Appeal from the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.).
Initially we hold that, because defendant failed to previously move to suppress the steel rod as the product of an unreasonable search and seizure, the issue of its admissibility has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 887, 888; People v Hollman, 168 A.D.2d 259, 260, affd 79 N.Y.2d 181; People v Smith, 145 A.D.2d 517, 518). Next, we disagree with defendant's contention that County Court erred in allowing the prosecution to question defendant with respect to a prior conviction for a crime wherein he used a loaded gun. Not only did the court properly balance the probative value of the prior crime against any possible danger of prejudice (see, People v Sierra, 167 A.D.2d 765, 766-767, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 882), but it specifically instructed the jury that defendant's prior conviction could only be considered on the issue of defendant's testimonial credibility (see, e.g., People v Allen, 172 A.D.2d 542, 544, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 961). Finally, as this court has previously determined that Penal Law § 205.00 (3) "does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority" (People v Anderson, 127 A.D.2d 885, 886), defendant's claim to the contrary is without merit.
Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.