Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The exclusion of cross-examination concerning prior convictions is a matter largely resting within the discretion of the trial court (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274). The trial court in the present case did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant with regard to two of his five prior convictions for similar offenses. The fact that the defendant may specialize in one area of criminal activity will not automatically shield him from cross-examination as to those prior convictions (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v. McAleavey, 159 A.D.2d 646). Moreover, the defendant's commission of those offenses is indicative of his willingness to place his personal interests above those of society and his possible willingness to do so again on the witness stand (see, People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 151; People v. Smith, 197 A.D.2d 717).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Joy, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.