Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court's Sandoval ruling effectively prevented him from presenting a defense. We disagree. The trial court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant for impeachment purposes concerning the underlying facts of certain prior convictions of theft-related crimes in the event the defendant testified at trial, was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The defendant has an extensive criminal record. The mere fact that a defendant has committed crimes similar to the ones with which he is charged does not automatically preclude the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes (see, People v. Sharkey, 186 A.D.2d 63; People v. Woods, 158 A.D.2d 566; People v. Winfield, 145 A.D.2d 449, 450). Moreover, the defendant's prior convictions were highly relevant to the issue of his credibility and demonstrated the defendant's willingness to deliberately further his self-interest at the expense of society (see, People v. Lowenstein, 203 A.D.2d 304; People v. Dillon, 189 A.D.2d 775; People v. Winfield, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Copertino, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.