Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The court properly determined that the probative value of evidence of prior convictions relating to the defendant's placing his interests above those of society outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Further, there is no per se rule as to the number of prior convictions which may be ruled admissible (see, People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709).
The trial court properly ruled that the statements made by unidentified bystanders were not admissible as excited utterances since there was no evidence that those declarants spoke with personal knowledge of the facts (see, People v. McNeil, 163 A.D.2d 329; People v. Wright, 157 A.D.2d 534; People v. Rivers, 109 A.D.2d 758; People v. Rhodes, 96 A.D.2d 565).
Miller, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.