DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in its Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). A defendant is not shielded from cross examination merely because he or she specializes in one particular form of criminal conduct ( see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 208; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Carrion, 265 A.D.2d 564, 565). In addition, the age of some of the defendant's prior convictions did not, by itself, mandate preclusion ( see People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459; People v. Patterson, 88 A.D.2d 694, affd 59 N.Y.2d 794; People v. Simmons, 213 A.D.2d 433, 434; People v. Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881).
The defendant's contention that his sentencing as a persistent felony offender violated his constitutional rights to notice and a jury trial pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey ( 530 U.S. 466) is without merit ( see People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, cert denied 534 U.S. 899).
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.