The court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that defendant could be cross-examined with respect to prior convictions in Pennsylvania for rape, terroristic threats and robbery. The similarity of the past crimes does not preclude their use on cross-examination ( see, People v Cornell, 170 AD2d 343, lv denied 77 NY2d 993), and the court properly weighed the probative weight of those crimes against the risk of unfair prejudice to defendant ( see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 375).
We reject the contention that, because his assigned counsel failed to seek dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30, defendant was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. Defendant has not shown that the motion, if made, would have been successful and has failed to establish that counsel failed to provide meaningful representation ( see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Torrence, 135 AD2d 1075, 1076, lv denied 70 NY2d 1011). There is no merit to the contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.)