Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, the hearing court properly denied the motion to suppress the victim's showup identification of the defendant, since it was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime and was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Mitchell, 185 A.D.2d 249; People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541). We also reject the defendant's contention that it was prejudicial to admit the photograph taken of him at the time of his arrest. It is well-settled that arrest photographs may be admitted to establish a defendant's appearance at the time of the crime (see, People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 195; People v. Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397, 398).
With respect to Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to allow the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant regarding three of his nine prior convictions (see, People v. Branch, 155 A.D.2d 475). The similarity between the prior crimes and the crimes charged does not automatically preclude inquiry (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282). Moreover, in limiting cross-examination to three of the defendant's prior convictions, the court exercised a proper balance between the probative value of the convictions for impeachment purposes and the prejudicial effect of such impeachment upon the defendant (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 376; People v. Bearthea, 171 A.D.2d 751).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.