ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that the prosecution could inquire into the facts underlying a charge for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, which resulted in the defendant's adjudication as a youthful offender, if the defendant testified. "It is well settled that the prosecution may inquire as to the underlying facts of a youthful offender adjudication to impeach the defendant's credibility, so long as the ultimate disposition is not elicited" (People v. Javois, 188 A.D.2d 664; see also People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709; People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 176).
The defendant also contends that the Supreme Court improperly denied his motion to set aside the verdict based on newly discovered evidence, pursuant to CPL 330.30(3). The motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and we find that it providently exercised its discretion (see People v. Miller, 124 A.D.2d 830, 832, cert denied 481 U.S. 1071)
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
SMITH, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.