Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On the instant appeal, the defendant argues, inter alia, that the Supreme Court committed prejudicial error in its Sandoval ruling by allowing the People to cross-examine him with respect to three prior misdemeanor convictions. This argument must be rejected. The defendant "forfeited his right to challenge the court's adverse Sandoval ruling by his plea of guilty" (People v Thompson, 117 A.D.2d 637, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 951). Were we to reach the merits of the defendant's Sandoval contention, we would hold that the court did not abuse its discretion, since these prior crimes were "highly probative of defendant's willingness to put his self-interest before that of society" (People v Thompson, supra).
The record supports the Supreme Court's determination after a Wade hearing that the photographic identification procedures utilized by the police were "constitutionally fair and not suggestive" and that the victims could make in-court identifications of the defendant at trial (see, People v Garcia, 115 A.D.2d 617, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 883). In any event, the People established, by clear and convincing evidence at the Wade hearing, that the proffered in-court identifications had an independent origin based on the victims' opportunity to view the defendant in good light and in close quarters during the commission of the crime (People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600; People v Whitaker, 126 A.D.2d 688, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1011).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.