| People v Townsend |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01524 [70 AD3d 982] |
| February 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AllanTownsend, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JeanetteLifschitz, and Jennifer S. Michael of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Hollie, J.), rendered September 25, 2007, convicting him of assault in the second degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court imposed October 9, 2007.
Ordered that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) struck an appropriate balance between theprobative value of the defendant's prior crimes and the possible prejudice to the defendant(see People v Springer, 13 AD3d 657, 658 [2004]). The fact that several of thedefendant's convictions were approximately 20 years old does not, in and of itself, require thepreclusion of those convictions for purposes of impeachment (see People v Springer, 13AD3d at 658). Similarly, inquiry into the defendant's drug-related offenses need not be precludedon the basis of his alleged drug addiction (see People v Hall, 99 AD2d 843 [1984]). Thecourt precluded inquiry into the underlying facts of those prior offenses which involved the useof a weapon, and therefore were most prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant's previousconvictions were probative in evaluating his credibility, and thus the court's Sandovalruling was proper (see People v Hines, 3 AD3d 580 [2004]; People v Williams,292 AD2d 474, 475 [2002]; People v Clarke, 265 AD2d 566 [1999]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court'sexamination of witnesses and other conduct during trial is unpreserved for appellate review(see People v DeNormand, 1 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2003]; People v Manigault, 297AD2d 754 [2002]; People v Orsini, 246 AD2d 674 [1998]; People v Gonzalez,183 AD2d 783 [1992]) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v DeNormand, 1AD3d at 1048; People v Todd, 306 AD2d 504 [2003]; People v Collado, 277AD2d 393 [2000]; People v Hartzog, 263 AD2d 492 [1999]). Santucci, J.P., Dickerson,Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.