Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) properly balanced the probative value of the evidence of the defendant's criminal background and the possible prejudice to him ( see People v Harris, 74 AD3d 984; People v Ward, 65 AD3d 1172, 1173; People v Hayes, 44 AD3d 683). The fact that the defendant's previous conviction took place 10 years earlier does not, by itself, warrant its preclusion for impeachment purposes ( see People v White, 60 AD3d 1095, 1096; People v Fotiou, 39 AD3d 877, 878).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492; People v Clemmons, 83 AD3d 859). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Serrano, 74 AD3d 1104, 1105-1106; Matter of Sean R., 33 AD3d 925; People v Samwell, 287 AD2d 663; People v Smalls, 282 AD2d 694, 695). Moreover, upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).