Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). We disagree. The court permitted the People to inquire, in the event that the defendant chose to testify, into all five of the defendant's prior convictions. The People, however, were limited to eliciting the underlying facts to those convictions that were theft-related, which are relevant to issues of credibility (see, People v. Sandoval, supra, at 376-377); and to those convictions that were not similar to the crime charged so as to prevent the prejudicial effect of establishing that the defendant had a propensity to commit the crime charged (see, People v. Aguilera, 156 A.D.2d 698, 699; People v. Salcedo, 133 A.D.2d 129). In so doing, the court properly exercised its discretion in its Sandoval ruling.
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Jackson, 208 A.D.2d 862; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.