Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record indicates that the Supreme Court, in ruling that the prosecution could cross-examine the defendant concerning his two prior convictions involving the sale of controlled substances, properly balanced the probative worth of the evidence for impeachment purposes against the risk of prejudice to the defendant ( see, People v Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Furthermore, the mere similarity between the prior convictions and the crime charged herein does not automatically preclude such inquiry by the prosecution ( see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Roman, 190 A.D.2d 831). In addition, the fact the two prior drug convictions were five years old at the time of trial did not, by itself, mandate a contrary ruling ( see, People v. Simmons, 213 A.D.2d 433, 434; People v. Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881). Accordingly, the trial court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion.
The sentence imposed is not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.