The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of an uncharged crime. The probative value of the uncharged theft outweighed its prejudicial effect, particularly after defendant elicited from the complainant a prior inconsistent statement that was capable of being explained by the complainant's confusing references to the instant and prior crimes (see, People v. Sosa, 267 A.D.2d 106, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 953).
The challenged portions of the People's cross-examination and summation could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).
Defendant's constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329 [Apr 3, 2001], 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 943).