Defendant's complaints about the court's Sandoval ruling are not preserved for review, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court balanced the appropriate factors and properly exercised its discretion. The court properly permitted cross-examination on the basis of prior acts of dishonesty that were highly relevant to credibility notwithstanding their similarity to the charges against defendant (see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). The prior bad acts were not the subject of pending charges (compare, People v. Betts, 70 N.Y.2d 289), and, since defendant never raised the issue, the court had no opportunity to ascertain whether or not there was an actual self-incrimination problem and, if so, to fashion a suitable remedy.
Defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.