DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as it was not raised before the sentencing court ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Best, 295 A.D.2d 441; People v. Mack, 293 A.D.2d 761). In any event, the contention is without merit. The fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than that offered during plea negotiations does not establish the defendant's entitlement to a lesser sentence ( see People v. Mack, supra; People v. Best, supra).
The defendant's remaining contention, that it was an improvident exercise of the County Court's discretion to permit cross-examination concerning the existence of prior remote convictions, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Polk, 284 A.D.2d 416; People v. Taylor, 253 A.D.2d 471). In any event, in light of the defendant's extensive period of incarceration in the intervening years since the prior remote convictions, it was a provident exercise of the County Court's discretion to permit the cross-examination ( see People v. Maurer, 186 A.D.2d 228).
H. MILLER, J.P., ADAMS, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.