| People v Paige |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07456 [88 AD3d 912] |
| October 18, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JasonPaige, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, andJill Oziemblewski of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.),rendered July 29, 2009, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree and assault in the firstdegree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of kidnapping in the second degree and two counts of assault inthe first degree based upon evidence that during the period of time between July 3, 2008, andJuly 20, 2008, he restrained and repeatedly beat his then girlfriend with an extension cord,causing multiple lacerations and scarring.
The Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371[1974]), which, inter alia, allowed inquiry into the defendant's misdemeanor conviction inCalifornia for threatening a woman with a weapon, and three prior convictions for criminalcontempt for violating orders of protection, was not an improvident exercise of discretion. TheSupreme Court properly balanced the probative value of the defendant's prior convictions on theissue of the defendant's credibility against the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant(id.; see People v Celleri, 29AD3d 707, 708-709 [2006]; Peoplev Avila, 69 AD3d 642, 642 [2010]). The similarity of the convictions to the crimescharged did not preclude inquiry into their nature (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203[2002]; People v Aguayo, 85 AD3d809 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 812 [2011]; People v Harris, 74 AD3d 984, 985 [2010]; People v Avila,69 AD3d at 642).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as the record revealsthat defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174 [2003]; People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]), and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.Rivera, J.P., Florio, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.