People v. Waltower

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered May 7, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 ), permitting the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant regarding the underlying facts of his prior convictions for attempted robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, was a provident exercise of discretion (see, People v Pally, 131 AD2d 889 ). The trial court properly balanced the probative weight of the evidence against any prejudicial effect (see, People v Pally, supra; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282 , 292). Moreover, it is well settled that 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 (People v Woods, 158 AD2d 566 , 567). The defendant’s prior convictions were highly relevant on the issue of his credibility since they demonstrated his willingness to further his own interests at the expense of society (see, People v Woods, supra; People v Sandoval, supra).

The defendant’s contention that his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gerofsky, 244 AD2d 569 ; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 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 [5]; People v Holmes, 232 AD2d 169 ).

Finally, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor exces