Opinion
November 23, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Trial Judge did not abuse her discretion in permitting the prosecutor to inquire into three previous convictions of the defendant for larceny which were highly probative of the "defendant's willingness to advance his self-interest at the expense of others" (People v. Williams, 108 A.D.2d 767; see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Torres, 110 A.D.2d 794). Nor did the admission of the defendant's suppressed statement to the officer on rebuttal constitute error (People v Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321; People v. Guidice, 83 A.D.2d 756). Although several of the prosecutor's remarks were better left unsaid, such remarks did not operate to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Gonzalez, 102 A.D.2d 895). Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.