Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant with respect to 8 of 17 prior convictions, was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The previous convictions involving theft demonstrated the defendant's willingness to place his own interests ahead of the interests of society, thereby impacting directly upon the issue of the defendant's credibility (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The similarity between the prior crimes and the crimes charged does not automatically preclude inquiry (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v Torres, 110 A.D.2d 794, 795). Moreover, the prior convictions were not so remote in time as to require preclusion of cross-examination regarding them (see, People v Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1056). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.