People v. Diaz

We perceive no error in the trial court’s Sandoval ruling. Defendant’s prior convictions were relevant since they bore upon defendant’s credibility (People v Nestman, 220 AD2d 232). Defendant never made a specific objection to the court’s ruling concerning his prior youthful offender adjudication, and therefore, the claim is unpreserved for review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find reversal would not be warranted under the facts of this case.

We also find unpreserved defendant’s arguments concerning the "no inference” charge (People v…