MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law 160.05), grand larceny in the fourth degree (155.30 [4]) and petit larceny ( 155.25). We reject defendant's contention that County Court's Sandoval ruling constituted an abuse of discretion ( see People v Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459). The court's Sandoval compromise, limiting questioning on two of the three convictions at issue to whether defendant had been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor on the appropriate date, reflects a proper exercise of the court's discretion ( see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 207-208; People v. Wheeler, 281 A.D.2d 949, 950, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 836). By failing to object to the court's jury instructions, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the preliminary instructions, witness credibility instruction and alibi charge were erroneous or improper ( see CPL 470.05; see also People v. Brown, 176 A.D.2d 1232, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 853; People v. Bennett, 175 A.D.2d 251, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1073). The further contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct is likewise not preserved for our review ( see People v. Pulley, 302 A.D.2d 899 [Feb. 3, 2003]; People v. Perez, 298 A.D.2d 935, 937, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 562). In any event, those contentions lack merit.