Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no improvident exercise of discretion in the trial court's Sandoval ruling that the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine the defendant as to his three prior felony convictions and their underlying facts (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274). The defendant did not meet his burden of proving that the prejudicial effect of admitting the prior convictions would so outweigh the probative worth on the issue of credibility as to warrant excluding the prior convictions (see, People v Sandoval, supra, at 378). The prior convictions at issue were for attempted burglary, robbery, and unlawful imprisonment, and therefore were especially probative of the defendant's credibility because the attempted burglary and robbery convictions involved an element of larceny and because all of the prior convictions demonstrated the defendant's willingness to place his interests above those of society (see, People v Sandoval, supra, at 377; People v Boseman, 161 A.D.2d 601, 602; People v Ellis, 162 A.D.2d 611). Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.