PEOPLE v. MALAVE (2001)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered January 7, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the trial 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 trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting inquiry into two of the defendant's five prior convictions, and in allowing questioning as to the underlying facts of one of those two convictions.   The trial court's ruling 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 him (see, People v. Scarpulla, 238 A.D.2d 359, 656 N.Y.S.2d 55;  People v. Overton, 192 A.D.2d 624, 596 N.Y.S.2d 155).   The mere fact that the two prior convictions into which inquiry was permitted were similar in nature to the instant offenses did not warrant their preclusion.   The fact that a defendant may specialize in one type of criminal activity does not shield him from impeachment (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).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 497 N.Y.S.2d 637, 488 N.E.2d 458;  People v. Hojas, 271 A.D.2d 547, 706 N.Y.S.2d 349).