*457 OPINION OF THE COURT
The narrow issue presented for consideration here is whether defendant was entitled to an order precluding the prosecution from cross-examining him about his prior use of aliases when the defense claimed that there was an alternative explanation for the defendant’s use of aliases that potentially rebutted the inference of dishonesty. Concluding that the probative worth of alias evidence can be adequately assessed by the fact finder in most situations, we decline to impose a legal requirement of preclusion in these circumstances and hold instead that, like many issues involving the proper scope of cross-examination, the prosecution’s use of alias evidence as cross-examination material rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.
I.
Defendant was charged with criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in connection with a November 20, 1990 sale of a quantity of cocaine to an undercover officer. Prior to trial, the court conducted a
Sandoval
hearing at which the prosecutor’s plans to cross-examine defendant about his prior criminal acts were discussed
(see, People v Sandoval,
In addition to reviewing defendant’s prior convictions, the parties focused at the Sandoval hearing on defendant’s prior use of aliases and other false pedigree information. The prosecutor asserted that defendant had used 14 different names and 5 different dates of birth on the occasions that he had been arrested. Arguing that this use of false information "goes directly to the defendant’s credibility,” the prosecutor asked to be permitted to cross-examine defendant on the subject in the event that he decided to take the witness stand. Anticipating the prosecutor’s request, defense counsel had noted in his opening remarks that defendant is a Muslim and that "that may explain why * * * he used the name of Ali.” Moreover, according to defense counsel, defendant had been using his father’s surname when he told the police in 1982 that his *458 name was "Alvin Smith.” Finally, defense counsel asserted, defendant had used the name "McDonald” when he "was under the influence of drugs and was not in his right mind.”
After hearing both parties’ arguments, the court ruled that the People would be permitted to question defendant about his use of "numerous aliases” and "various dates of birth.” With regard to the prior felony and misdemeanor convictions, the court held that the People would be able to inquire about their number and dates but would not be permitted to allude to the underlying facts.
Defendant was subsequently tried before a jury. Having elected not to testify, defendant rested his defense on a challenge to the reliability of the People’s witnesses, particularly the undercover officer who had actually purchased the cocaine and identified defendant as the seller. The jury found defendant guilty of criminal sale in the third degree, and defendant was subsequently sentenced to a 6- to 12-year term of imprisonment. On defendant’s appeal, the Appellate Division found no reason to disturb the judgment of conviction, although it noted that the trial court "would have been more circumspect in its
[Sandoval]
obligation” if it had limited the number of prior convictions that the People could use on cross-examination (
II.
Initially, we reject defendant’s contention that the conviction should be overturned because the trial court failed properly to balance the Sandoval factors in deciding to permit cross-examination with respect to each of defendant’s 19 prior convictions. While, as the Appellate Division noted, the trial court might have been more discriminating, we find no legal reason to upset the court’s exercise of its discretion (see, People v Mackey, 49 NY2d 274, 281).
In this regard, it must be stressed that "in the usual case, appellate review of the exercise of discretion by the trial court * * * ends in the intermediate appellate court”
(People v Pollock,
Here, the record does not indicate a failure by the trial court to balance the relevant factors. To the contrary, the court’s decision, which permitted inquiry about each of defendant’s prior convictions but forbade reference to the underlying criminal acts, reflects sensitivity to the particular prejudice that may result when a jury is made aware of the fact that the defendant has previously committed crimes that are similar to the charged crime
(see, People v Smith,
That the number of prior convictions ruled admissible was large and that some of those prior convictions were remote in time are matters of substance that may properly be considered by the trial court but are not appropriate bases for this Court to second-guess the trial court’s conclusion
(see, People v Patterson,
Distilled to its essentials, defendant’s present appellate claim is really nothing more than a disagreement with the ultimate outcome of the trial court’s discretionary balancing determination. Such a disagreement does not furnish a cognizable ground for intervention by this Court, which is limited *460 to resolving questions of law (see, CPL 470.35 [2]). Accordingly, the only remaining question with regard to the propriety of the trial court’s Sandoval ruling is whether the court erred in holding that the People could cross-examine defendant about his prior use of aliases despite defense counsel’s representations that there were alternative, arguably innocent explanations for several of the incidents in question. It is to that question that we now turn our attention.
III.
The question of using alias evidence as a basis for cross-examining a testifying defendant has been referred to in a series of Appellate Division decisions. In most of the cases, the intermediate appellate courts have merely set forth the commonsense proposition that the People cannot ask about aliases used by a defendant in such a way as to suggest the existence of a prior arrest when the trial court has previously precluded all reference to the crime associated with that arrest
(People v Esquilin,
The foregoing line of cases, however, provides no comfort for this defendant, who obtained a wholly unfavorable
Sandoval
ruling. Accordingly, on this appeal, defendant has invoked a different line of cases from the Second Department which suggests a much broader rule: i.e., that a defendant’s use of aliases on "prior [occasions] unrelated to the [case on trial]” is not a proper subject for impeachment at all
(People v High-tower,
Preliminarily, we note that there was no mention at trial of a need for a special inquest or a particularized showing of relevance by the prosecution. Instead, there was, at most, a contention by defense counsel that any cross-examination as to prior alias use should be limited because there was an arguably innocent reason for defendant’s use of a different name on three of the relevant occasions. Thus, the only preserved question before us is whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in rebuffing defense counsel’s assertions as a ground for forbidding cross-examination with regard to some of the incidents in which defendant had used "aliases.”
To answer this question, we begin with the elementary premise that impeachment is a particular form of cross-examination whose purpose is, in part, to discredit the witness and to persuade the fact finder that the witness is not being truthful
(see generally,
Fisch, New York Evidence § 447 [2d ed]). One traditional method of accomplishing these ends is to demonstrate through questioning that the witness has been guilty of prior immoral, vicious or criminal conduct bearing on credibility
(id.,
§ 455;
see, e.g., People v Schwartzman,
Manifestly, a suspect’s use of a false name or other inaccurate pedigree information is an indication of dishonesty that goes to the very heart of the question of that individual’s testimonial credibility. Giving false pedigree information in situations where one is called upon to be truthful is, by
*462
definition, an act of prevarication. Common sense suggests that individuals who give false information in such situations are usually motivated by a desire to gain some unwarranted benefit or to avoid some deserved penalty or liability
(see, People v Colmey,
To be sure, as defendant contends, there are situations in which the use of a name other than one’s accustomed appellation is not indicative of deliberate dishonesty. Converts to particular religion, for example, sometimes adopt new names to reflect their new affiliation and beliefs. Married women often assume their husband’s surname or join it with a hyphen to their own surnames. Additionally, some women who have previously used their husbands’ surnames elect to resume the use of their premarital names for personal reasons having nothing to do with a desire to deceive or evade responsibility. Finally, there are situations in which confusion within the criminal justice system itself can make it appear that an individual is using an alias when, in fact, the individual is being truthful. Mistakes concerning the spelling or correct order of a foreign name can lead to errors in the records which, in turn, can create the false impression that a rearrested suspect is using an "alias”.
The existence of these potential "innocent” explanations for a name discrepancy, however, is not a sufficient basis to treat alias evidence differently or to carve out a special exception to the general rule that the nature and extent of cross-examination are matters that are entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court
(People v Schwartzman, supra,
at 244;
People v Sorge,
In concluding that there is no need for a special rule to govern the use of alias evidence for impeachment, we note that, unlike prior crime evidence, there is nothing inherent in alias evidence that suggests a need for extraordinary caution. Evidence that a defendant has previously committed or been convicted of a crime can be highly prejudicial because of the risk that the jury will use it to infer criminal propensity
(People v Sandoval, supra,
at 377;
accord, People v McGee,
Application of these principles to the present case leads inevitably to affirmance. Defense counsel’s assertions about the potentially "innocent” explanations for defendant’s prior use of false names and birthdates were highly speculative and, in any event, did not suggest a legal reason to mandate preclusion. The facts that one of the so-called "aliases” may have been defendant’s Muslim name, that another was defendant’s father’s name and that a third was given to police when defendant was in a state of drug-induced confusion may have affected the value of the incidents as indicia of untruthfulness. However, those facts did not render the evidence inadmissible as a matter of law. It thus cannot be said that the trial court exceeded or abused its discretionary authority over the nature and extent of cross-examination when it determined that the prosecution could cross-examine defendant regarding his prior use of aliases and other false pedigree information (see generally, People v Schwartzman, supra).
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed.
Notes
. We assume that, upon request and a proper offer of proof by the defense, the trial court will ordinarily exercise its discretion in favor of permitting a cross-examined defendant to explain his or her prior use of an alias (see, Fisch, op. cit., § 495 ["A witness whose credibility has been attacked may be rehabilitated (and t)he manner in which this can be done varies with, and is determined by, the form of the discrediting evidence”]).
. Inasmuch as both parties in this case chose to litigate the question of the admissibility of the alias evidence within the context of the
Sandoval
hearing, we have no occasion to consider whether a similar procedure is mandatory in all cases
(cf., People v Kennedy,