At page 318 Affirming judgments and ruling on impeachment and sufficiency of evidence3 citing cases“In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
- People v. Manigat, 136 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).publishedMoreover, the mere fact that the bad acts were similar or even identical in nature to the instant offenses did not warrant their preclusion, and the defendant is not shielded from impeachment because he chose to specialize in one type of c…
- People v. Harris, 74 A.D.3d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).publishedMoreover, the mere fact that the prior crimes were similar or even identical in nature to the instant of fenses did not warrant their preclusion (see People v White, 60 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2009]; People v Fotiou, 39 AD3d 877, 878 [2007]), and…
- People v. Springer, 13 A.D.3d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2004).publishedThe 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 Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 274-275 [1990]; People v Sokolov, 245 AD2d 317, 318 [1997…
v.
Alex Sokolov
—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), both rendered June 14, 1995, convicting him (1) under Indictment No. 2907/93 of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) under Indictment No. 2780/93 of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
[*318] Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court’s Sandoval ruling was proper. The fact that a defendant may specialize in one type of criminal activity should not shield him from impeachment by use of his prior convictions (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459; People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 274-275; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v McClam, 225 AD2d 799).
The defendant’s contention that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crimes of robbery in the first and second degrees and burglary in the first and second degrees is unpreserved for appellate review (see, GPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite the fact that the defendant wore a mask, the complainant briefly observed the entire right side of his face, and for 15 minutes, heard his voice, and observed his build, the way he walked, and his height, under good lighting conditions. Given the facts of this case, a rational trier of fact could have found that the People proved the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Rodriguez, 192 AD2d 731). 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]). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Lerner, JJ., concur.