By failing to raise a proper objection to the court's Sandoval ruling, defendant has not preserved any claim challenging the ruling as a matter of law (People v. Devonish, 201 A.D.2d 297, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 1003), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into six of defendant's numerous prior convictions, while precluding inquiry into their underlying facts, defendant's prior use of aliases and prior probation and parole violations, did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.