DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rendering its Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The court weighed the competing factors and limited inquiry on cross-examination of the defendant to three theft-related felonies while prohibiting discussion of the underlying facts (see, People v. Walken, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459; People v. Sandoval, supra). The mere similarity between the prior felony convictions and the crime charged was insufficient to preclude their use on cross-examination (see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269; People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.