Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecution to cross-examine him, if he testified, on a prior conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance, and various misdemeanor convictions including one for criminal possession of stolen property, and several for petit larceny, was improper. The court properly balanced the probative value of the evidence against its potential for impermissible prejudice (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). "[Q]uestioning concerning other crimes is not automatically precluded simply because the crimes to be inquired about are similar to the crimes charged" (People v. Pavao, supra, at 292; see also, People v. Womble, 161 A.D.2d 679, 680; People v. Smith, 138 A.D.2d 759). Furthermore, the commission of crimes or acts of individual dishonesty such as theft will usually be materially relevant to a defendant's credibility (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377; see also, People v Womble, supra; People v. Smith, supra). Thus, the court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion.
The defendant's claim that he was denied due process due to the trial court's failure, with respect to the crime of burglary, to clearly charge the jury that the defendant must have formed an intent to commit a crime at the time of unlawful entry, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Santana, 172 A.D.2d 299), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Bracken and Lawrence, JJ., concur.