PEOPLE v. JOYNER

The court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459). Defendant's prior felony conviction, the nature and underlying facts of which were precluded, was not excessively remote given defendant's incarceration during a substantial portion of the intervening years.

The court properly declined to instruct that the evidence must be considered separately as against each perpetrator since this was a single-defendant trial and the court's instructions made clear to the jury that they could only convict defendant if the evidence proved his individual guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the disputed portions of the ballistics expert's testimony (see,People v. Scarola, 71 N.Y.2d 769, 777). Defendant's challenges to this testimony affect its weight rather than its admissibility.

Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.