DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in making its Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 374-375), as it struck a proper balance between the probative worth of the evidence of the defendant's criminal history and the possible prejudice to him ( see People v. Torres, 302 A.D.2d 411; People v. Forino, 287 A.D.2d 519).
The defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved for appellate review because he either failed to make specific and timely objections thereto ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Williams, 303 A.D.2d 772; People v. Joseph, 298 A.D.2d 601) or failed to seek further ameliorative action after certain objections were sustained ( see People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Joseph, supra; People v. Woods, 296 A.D.2d 430).
SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.