Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County, rendered June 21, 2002 after a jury trial (Ellen M. Coin, J.) convicting him of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00[1]) and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26[1]), and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction rendered June 21, 2002 (Ellen M. Coin, J.) affirmed.

The defendant's arguments that the trial court erred in modifying its Sandoval (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) ruling to permit reference to a prior disorderly conduct conviction and that the prosecutor otherwise violated the terms of the initial Sandoval ruling are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review these claims, we would find no error warranting corrective action. The prosecutor's isolated Sandoval violation resulted in no discernible prejudice to defendant, in view of the court's prompt curative instructions that the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Chaney, 301 AD2d 478 [2003], lv denied 95 NY2d 627 [2003]; People v Scoggins, 227 AD2d 204, 205 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 994 [1996]). And while we agree with defendant's appellate argument that he did not "open the door" to questioning about his prior disorderly conduct conviction, the error in permitting such inquiry was harmless in view of the overwhelming proof repudiating defendant's justification defense (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Duggins, 1 AD3d 450, 451-452 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 522 [2004]; People v Lawson, 293 AD2d 338 [2002], lv denied 98 [*2]NY2d 731 [2002]). In this regard, we note that the complainant's credible account of the defendant's severe and unrelenting attack was substantiated by both eyewitness testimony and medical
evidence.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: November 07, 2005