ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that the prosecution could inquire as to the defendant's past acts of dishonesty or untrustworthiness (see People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377-378; People v. Sobers, 272 A.D.2d 418; People v. Ramsey, 220 A.D.2d 697). The defendant's past acts demonstrated his willingness to place his own interests ahead of the interests of society, and were relevant on the issue of his credibility (see People v. Sandoval, supra).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence that the defendant failed to file Federal personal income tax returns and New York State corporate tax returns for two corporations of which he was the sole shareholder during the same period of time that he was charged as failing to file New York State personal income tax returns. This evidence was properly admissible to establish the defendant's intent (see Tax Law § 1803[a]; People v. Bayne, 82 N.Y.2d 673, 675-676; People v. Ingram, 71 N.Y.2d 474, 479; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Tardbania, 72 N.Y.2d 852, 853; People v. Bailey, 58 N.Y.2d 272, 275; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953) or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.