The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459; People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). While portions of the court's comments were most injudicious, the record does not support defendant's contention that the court failed to exercise its discretion in making its Sandoval ruling. The court specifically stated, inter alia, that it found that the bearing on defendant's credibility of the underlying facts of his prior youthful offender adjudication, involving a robbery during which one of the participants fired a gun, outweighed their prejudicial effect.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.