DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) was a provident exercise of discretion. By limiting cross-examination to selected aspects of the defendant's criminal record, the Supreme Court properly balanced the probative value of such evidence against its prejudicial effects ( see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 208; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Sandoval, supra at 378). The defendant's argument that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling deprived him of his constitutional rights has not been preserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
SANTUCCI, J.P., ADAMS, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.