ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, in its Sandoval (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) ruling, in determining that if the defendant chose to testify the prosecution could ask him on cross-examination if he was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree on December 11, 1989. Although that previous conviction was for the same crime for which the defendant was on trial, the Supreme Court struck an appropriate balance by limiting the number of convictions the defendant could be asked about, and precluding the prosecution from inquiring as to the underlying facts of the prior convictions (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455).
The defendant's contentions that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's improper comments during summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245) or without merit.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
GOLDSTEIN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.