PEOPLE v. McGILL

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Had the defendant elected to testify on his own behalf, the ruling would have allowed inquiry into his convictions of three prior crimes, but not into the underlying facts of those crimes. The defendant's previous convictions were probative on the issues of his credibility and his willingness to place his interests above those of society ( People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455; People v. Pavao, supra).

O'Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.