PEOPLE v. FORINO

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in making its Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 375). The trial court properly struck a balance between the probative worth of the evidence of the defendant's prior criminal history and its prejudicial effect, as it permitted the prosecutor to ask the defendant on cross-examination about the existence of two felony convictions for burglary, but not the nature or underlying circumstances (see, People v. Espinoza, 241 A.D.2d 554, 555; People v. Stiffler, 237 A.D.2d 753). Moreover, as the conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and his misdemeanor weapon conviction are indicative of the defendant's willingness to place his own interests above those of society, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to inquire with respect to the nature and the underlying circumstances of those crimes (see, People v. Sobers, 272 A.D.2d 418, 419; People v. Dwyer, 243 A.D.2d 645; People v. Coward, 248 A.D.2d 397, 398; People v. Turner, 239 A.D.2d 447, 448).

BRACKEN, P.J., LUCIANO, FEUERSTEIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.