Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that the prosecutor could cross-examine him with respect to three prior convictions in the event that he elected to testify (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The defendant's extensive criminal record, which included eight prior convictions for theft-related offenses, demonstrated his willingness to place his own interests ahead of the interests of society, thereby directly impacting upon the issue of his credibility (see, People v Sandoval, supra; People v Reynolds, 171 A.D.2d 707; People v Branch, 155 A.D.2d 475). Moreover, the similarity between the prior crimes and the crimes charged did not require their preclusion, as a defendant who specializes in one particular type of crime is not shielded from cross-examination thereon (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Branch, supra; People v Kyser, 147 A.D.2d 590). Brown, J.P., Sullivan, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.