People v. Cosme

*941The defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is without merit. The defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the prejudicial effect of cross-examination regarding certain prior convictions so outweighed the probative worth of that evidence that exclusion was warranted (see id. at 378; People v Harris, 74 AD3d 984, 984-985 [2010]). The trial court’s “Sandoval compromise” (People v Smith, 18 NY3d 588, 597-599 [2012] [Pigott, J., concurring]), therefore, was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see People v…