PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (2009)

 OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We have repeatedly held that the extent to which the prosecution may use prior convictions to impeach a defendant's testimony “is ‘largely, if not completely’ a discretionary determination for the trial courts and fact-reviewing intermediate appellate courts, and that generally no further review by this Court is warranted” (People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 274, 567 N.Y.S.2d 384, 568 N.E.2d 1189 [1990], quoting People v. Shields, 46 N.Y.2d 764, 765, 413 N.Y.S.2d 649, 386 N.E.2d 257 [1978].   Here, Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 [1974] ) permitted the People to elicit from the defendant that he had one felony conviction and 45 misdemeanor convictions, but not to go into the underlying facts or circumstances of the convictions.   We conclude here, as we did in People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472 [1994] ), that “the trial court might have been more discriminating,” but that there is “no legal rea-son to upset the court's exercise of its discretion.”

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

MEMORANDUM.

Acting Chief Judge CIPARICK and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur.