Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling, permitting cross-examination of the defendant regarding the underlying facts of a conviction for the attempted sale of a controlled substance, did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion in a trial for robbery and criminal possession of stolen property. Trial courts have broad discretion to determine whether the probative value of evidence of prior crimes on the issue of the defendant's credibility outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Pally, 131 A.D.2d 889).
In addition, the defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's questions on cross-examination of the defendant are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311). In any event, the prosecutor's questions did not constitute reversible error.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.