Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's challenge to the hearing court's determination that he voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. The record reflects that Officer Bros read the defendant his Miranda rights, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights. The mere fact that the defendant was dirty, disheveled and appeared to Officer Bros to be a derelict does not, in and of itself, establish that the defendant lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequence of his waiver. Further, the defendant's answers to Officer Bros' questions were intelligible and coherent (cf., People v. Turkenich, 137 A.D.2d 363). Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find that the hearing court properly denied suppression (see, People v. Avilez, 121 A.D.2d 391, 392).
We further find without merit the defendant's claim that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to cross-examine him, if he took the stand, with regard to prior convictions of burglary in the second degree and attempted petit larceny. The court properly balanced the probative worth of the evidence on the issue of credibility against the prejudice it would cause the defendant (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). Therefore, the court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v. Pavao, supra; People v Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.