PEOPLE v. HALLINGQUEST

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) is without merit. The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting inquiry into two of the defendants' 12 prior convictions, and in allowing questioning as to the underlying facts 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. Malave, 288 A.D.2d 237; People v. Scarpulla, 238 A.D.2d 359). 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 (see People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882). A defendant is not shielded from impeachment because he specializes in one type of criminal activity (see People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Malave, supra; People v. Sokolov, 245 A.D.2d 317). In addition, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's mistrial motion made after the jury issued notes indicating it was deadlocked, and properly delivered Allen charges (see Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492; People v. Jackson, 291 A.D.2d 268).

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

The remaining contention raised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief is without merit.

SMITH, J.P., O'BRIEN, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.