The trial court's Sandoval ruling properly weighed the probative value of defendant's prior convictions against the potential for undue prejudice (see, People v Allen, 186 A.D.2d 379, 380, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 836). The prior felony convictions involving theft were "particularly relevant to the issue of credibility" (People v Ellis, 183 A.D.2d 534, 535, affd 81 N.Y.2d 854), and the prior misdemeanor conviction for attempted possession of drugs showed defendant's willingness to place his interests above those of society (People v Allen, supra). The potential for prejudice was minimized by limiting the inquiry into the facts of the underlying crimes. A Sandoval ruling is not invalidated simply because the defendant, as the "only material source of testimony in support of his defense", may have been deterred from testifying by the People's intention to inquire into the prior convictions (People v Grice, 177 A.D.2d 271, 272, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 857).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be both unpreserved for review and without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.