Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). The mere fact that a defendant had committed crimes similar to the one charged did not automatically warrant precluding the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes ( see, People v. Mattiace, supra; People v. Pavao, supra; People v. McClam, 225 A.D.2d 799).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal.
S. Miller, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.