People v. Ayuso

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and escape in the second degree (Penal Law § 205.10 [2]). County Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the People to cross-examine defendant regarding his prior convictions of burglary in the third degree (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 , 377). The similarity of the prior convictions does not preclude their use on cross-examination (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282 , 292; People v Ayala, 236 AD2d 802 , lv denied 90 NY2d 855 ). Those convictions “involved dishonesty and [were] highly relevant to the credibility of defendant and his willingness to advance his self-interest at the expense of others” (People v Lush, 249 AD2d 896 , 897). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction of escape in the second degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 , 19), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Kirk, J.— Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.