DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in making its Sandoval ruling (see People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Although the defendant's previous convictions were for the same types of crimes for which he was on trial, the Supreme Court struck an appropriate balance by limiting questioning to the most recent convictions, and precluding inquiry into the underlying facts of the prior convictions (see People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455). In addition, the defendant was not deprived of his right to be present at all material stages of the trial when the Supreme Court entertained an evidentiary application outside of his presence, as the application involved a matter of law, and the defendant's absence did not have a substantial effect on his ability to defend, nor did it involve factual matters about which the defendant might have peculiar knowledge (see People v. Bozella, 205 A.D.2d 790).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, FRIEDMANN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.