Opinion
October 27, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.)
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly found that the defendant's statements were not suppressible as the fruits of an illegal arrest. The evidence presented to the hearing court clearly demonstrated that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. The police were able to verify several significant details of the informant's story which were essential to carrying out the crime ( see, People v. DiFalco, 80 N.Y.2d 693, 699). Accordingly, contrary to the defendant's contention, we conclude that the veracity prong of the " Aguilar/Spinelli" test was satisfied ( see, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108; Spinelli v United States, 393 U.S. 410; People v. DiFalco, supra).
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that the prosecutor could cross-examine the defendant about the facts underlying his prior convictions for grand larceny in the fourth degree and possession of a loaded firearm rather than restricting inquiry to the mere fact of their existence. Those convictions were material and relevant to the issue of the defendant's credibility ( see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377; People v. Boseman, 161 A.D.2d 601, 602; People v Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 157, 158), and the Supreme Court was not obliged to make use of the " Sandoval Compromise" ( People v. Davis, 173 A.D.2d 634).
The defendant's claim that the evidence adduced by the People was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of manslaughter in the first degree for the death of Frank Morales is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 20-21). In any event, 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).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.