PEOPLE v. MACK (2004)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), rendered July 2, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, attempted robbery in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) is without merit.   The court struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant's prior crimes on the issue of his credibility and the possible prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236, 238-239, 451 N.Y.S.2d 690, 436 N.E.2d 1292;  People v. Sandoval, supra at 375, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413).   The mere fact that some of the prior convictions were similar in nature to the instant offenses did not warrant their preclusion.   The fact that the defendant chose to specialize in one type of criminal activity did not shield him from impeachment by use of prior convictions (see People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216;  People v. Sokolov, 245 A.D.2d 317, 667 N.Y.S.2d 263).   In addition, by precluding the prosecutor from eliciting the underlying facts of seven admitted convictions, the Supreme Court avoided any undue prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Ricks, 135 A.D.2d 844, 845, 522 N.Y.S.2d 945).   Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, considering the length of the defendant's cumulative period of incarceration in the years between his earliest convictions and trial of this matter, those convictions were not so remote in time as to mandate preclusion (see People v. Peterson, 262 A.D.2d 502, 693 N.Y.S.2d 154;  People v. Maurer, 186 A.D.2d 228, 587 N.Y.S.2d 772).