Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), which permitted inquiry as to the defendant's nine prior convictions, all of which had occurred within 10 years of the trial. It is well settled that the exclusion of prior convictions is largely a matter of discretion which rests with the trial court (see, People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v. Aguilera, 156 A.D.2d 698, 699). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not abdicate its discretionary responsibilities in rendering its Sandoval ruling, inasmuch as it permitted inquiry only as to whether each of the defendant's previous convictions represented a felony or a misdemeanor, and precluded any inquiry as to the nature or the underlying facts thereof (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; see, e.g., People v. Mendez, 191 A.D.2d 590; People v Gamble, 182 A.D.2d 703, 704; People v. Aguilera, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, O'Brien and Florio, JJ., concur.