Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with several crimes, including unauthorized use of a vehicle in the first degree. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court's Sandoval ruling was improper because it allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine him concerning a prior conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. We disagree.
Unauthorized use of a vehicle is an offense related to theft (see, Penal Law § 165.08). This court has noted on many occasions that a defendant's convictions relating to theft are "particularly" or "highly" relevant to his credibility and willingness to further his self-interest at the expense of society (People v. Moore, 168 A.D.2d 463; People v. Winfield, 145 A.D.2d 449; People v. Wendel, 123 A.D.2d 410; People v. Wright, 112 A.D.2d 179). Further, the fact that a defendant specializes in one type of criminal activity should not shield him from impeachment (see, People v. Fana, 142 A.D.2d 684; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882).
In any event, as the People note, in light of the fact that the charge of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the first degree was dismissed before the case was submitted to the jury, any error in the court's Sandoval ruling was harmless. Clearly, the jurors' knowledge of the defendant's prior conviction was not used to convict the defendant of a similar crime.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.