Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court's determination that the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials were voluntarily made was not erroneous, as it was supported by the uncontroverted evidence adduced at the hearing.
We also find that the trial court neither abdicated its responsibility to exercise its discretion under People v Sandoval ( 34 N.Y.2d 371) nor abused its discretion thereunder in denying the defendant's motion to preclude the prosecutor from cross-examining him, in the event he testified, as to his convictions and the underlying facts with respect to 7 of his 14 prior involvements with law enforcement officials (see, People v Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Wendel, 123 A.D.2d 410, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 835; People v. Tucker, 122 A.D.2d 237, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 918; cf., People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; People v Davis, 44 N.Y.2d 269).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.