Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant challenges the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling which permitted cross-examination on various prior petit larceny convictions and a prior robbery conviction. However, it is clear from the record that the court balanced the interests of the prosecution and the rights of the defendant and considered such factors as the period of time since the convictions, the degree to which the convictions bore on the defendant's veracity and credibility, the nature of the offenses, the relevancy of each conviction, and the potential for impermissible prejudice (see, People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236, 239; People v. Davis, 44 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 375). Thus, the record clearly exhibits a proper exercise of discretion by the court (see, People v. Torres, 110 A.D.2d 794, 795).
The pretrial ruling permitting the Assistant District Attorney to cross-examine on the defendant's use of aliases on prior occasions, unrelated to these charges, was incorrect (see, People v. Malphurs, 111 A.D.2d 266, 269, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 616, on reconsideration lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 920). However, the Assistant District Attorney limited his cross-examination to the defendant's use of an alias on his arrest for the instant charges. Thus, the defendant did not suffer any prejudice from the erroneous pretrial ruling, and it was, therefore, harmless error (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.