Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's claims, the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion since the prior convictions upon which inquiry was permitted were relevant to the defendant's propensity to place his own interests over those of society. Any similarities between those convictions and the crimes charged did not compel preclusion (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 374-375; People v. Guzman, 197 A.D.2d 705; People v. Craig, 194 A.D.2d 687; People v. Burton, 191 A.D.2d 703, 704; People v Ferreira, 172 A.D.2d 769; People v. Jeudi, 139 A.D.2d 594; People v. Badley, 122 A.D.2d 62; People v. Johnson, 113 A.D.2d 900, 901-902; People v. Felder, 108 A.D.2d 869, 870).
The defendant's claim that the court improperly permitted the People to amend the indictment is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Perez, 83 N.Y.2d 269, 274; People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600). In any event, this claim is without merit since the amendment did not change the theory of the prosecution or prejudice the defendant on the merits (see, CPL 200.70; People v. Perez, supra; People v Hartman, 123 A.D.2d 883; People v. Barbaran, 118 A.D.2d 578, 579-580; People v. Ames, 115 A.D.2d 543, 544-545).
The defendant's remaining claim is not reviewable on direct appeal from the judgment (see, People v. Brown, 192 A.D.2d 666; People v. Noland, 189 A.D.2d 829; People v. Weinberg, 183 A.D.2d 930). Miller, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.