PEOPLE v. POST

The trial court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion ( People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455). Defendant's theft-related convictions were highly relevant to his credibility, notwithstanding any similarity to the present charges ( see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292), and defendant cannot shield himself from impeachment simply because he has specialized in theft-related crimes.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. The record does not support defendant's contention that the court employed impermissible criteria in imposing sentence.