It is established that the nature and extent of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge, who may "make an advance ruling as to the use by the prosecutor of prior convictions or proof of the prior commission of specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts for the purpose of impeaching a defendant's credibility" (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 374). The court, by permitting the prosecution to ask defendant if he had been convicted of three misdemeanors and one felony since 1987, arrived at a compromise which was certainly within its discretion (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459), particularly since courts have often allowed examination into records that are much more extensive than that of defendant herein (see, e.g., People v. Walker, 186 A.D.2d 364, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1030; People v. Ellis, 183 A.D.2d 534, affd 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v. Coe, 165 A.D.2d 721).
As for the remarks by the Assistant District Attorney that defendant considers objectionable, we note that a prosecutor's reminder to the jury that an asserted defense is not supported by any evidence does not shift the burden of proof (see, People v Ovalle, 162 A.D.2d 156, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 862; People v. Lowe, 117 A.D.2d 755, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 946).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.