Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence was of sufficient quantity and quality to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's Sandoval ruling does not warrant reversal of his conviction. It is settled that "questioning concerning other crimes is not automatically precluded simply because the crimes to be inquired about are similar to the crimes charged" (People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; see also, People v. Brock, 125 A.D.2d 401). In this case, the defendant's prior convictions involved theft of property and, thus, were highly relevant to the issue of credibility. Accordingly, the trial court's ruling was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377; People v. James, 100 A.D.2d 552, 553).
Finally, under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86-87). Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.