Opinion
April 13, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly denied the defendant's request to charge petit larceny as a lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree, since no reasonable view of the evidence would have supported the conclusion that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater ( see, People v. White, 121 A.D.2d 762).
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that, should the defendant choose to testify, the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine him with respect to two prior convictions regarding auto theft ( see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The mere fact that a defendant has committed crimes similar to the one charged does not automatically preclude the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes ( see, People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, aff'd 46 N.Y.2d 882). The defendant's previous conviction of robbery was probative on the issue of his credibility and his willingness to put his own interests above that of society ( see, People v. Pally, 131 A.D.2d 889; see also, People v. Boseman, 161 A.D.2d 601).
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.