Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in its Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecutor to impeach him with the underlying facts of a prior robbery conviction. We disagree. Convictions involving theft, such as robbery, are highly relevant to the issue of credibility because they demonstrate the defendant's willingness to deliberately further his self-interest at the expense of society (see, People v Drakes, 211 A.D.2d 809; People v Kelland, 208 A.D.2d 954; People v Miller, 199 A.D.2d 422, 423). Moreover, any similarities between the defendant's prior conviction and the crimes charged did not compel preclusion (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Harvey, 212 A.D.2d 730). Finally, the record demonstrates that the court engaged in a proper balancing between the probative value of the conviction for impeachment purposes and the prejudicial effect of such impeachment upon the defendant (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 376; People v West, 212 A.D.2d 651). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.