DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's convictions stem from a sale of cocaine to an undercover police officer on a Brooklyn street. The defendant was arrested immediately after the sale. Additional packages of cocaine were seized from his possession, as was the pre-recorded money used by the undercover officer.
The defendant contends that the court's Sandoval ruling ( see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) was improper insofar as the court declined to exclude evidence of his past use of aliases in connection with two unresolved charges that were then pending against him. We are not persuaded that reversal is warranted.
It is well settled that there is no per se rule prohibiting the cross-examination of a defendant with evidence of his past use of aliases ( see, People v. Roberts, 163 A.D.2d 120). Indeed, it is well settled that the court possesses the discretion to receive evidence of a defendant's past use of aliases ( see, People v. Castrillo, 260 A.D.2d 280; People v. Santiago, 251 A.D.2d 239). Such evidence is probative of the defendant's credibility as it demonstrates his willingness to employ deception to place his own interests above those of society ( see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455; People v. Taylor, 253 A.D.2d 471; People v. Johnson, 249 A.D.2d 417; People v. Walker, 209 A.D.2d 559). While it has been noted that a defendant should only be cross-examined with evidence of his past use of aliases in connection with convictions ruled admissible for Sandoval purposes ( see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d, supra, at 464 n. 2), in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, any error in the court's Sandoval ruling was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v. Byrd, 239 A.D.2d 277; People v. Vega, 209 A.D.2d 220; People v. Roberts, supra).
The defendant's challenge to the court's suppression ruling is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
BRACKEN, J.P., THOMPSON, S. MILLER, and FRIEDMANN, JJ., concur.