Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention to the contrary notwithstanding, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when ruling that the prosecutor could cross-examine the defendant about the facts underlying his prior convictions for theft-related offenses rather than restricting inquiry to the mere fact of their existence. Those convictions, which were dissimilar to the crimes for which the defendant was then being tried, were material and relevant on the issue of the defendant's credibility (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377), and the Supreme Court was not obliged to make use of the "Sandoval Compromise" (see, People v Padilla, 123 A.D.2d 364; People v Hicks, 88 A.D.2d 519; see also, People v Bearthea, 171 A.D.2d 751; People v Hamilton, 171 A.D.2d 882). Moreover, the sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.