The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203; People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). The court minimized the possibility of prejudice by permitting the People to identify only one of defendant's felony convictions as a drug conviction, and by precluding any inquiry into underlying facts.
The verdict convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds was based on legally sufficient evidence. The evidence warranted the conclusion that the drug transaction occurred near school grounds within the meaning of Penal Law § 220.00(14) (see People v. Carter, 291 A.D.2d 355, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 695; see also Penal Law § 220.00; People v. Samuels, 99 N.Y.2d 20, 24).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.