Judgment affirmed.
In its Sandoval ruling, the trial court properly balanced the probative value of allowing cross-examination about the defendant's prior criminal record against its potential prejudicial effect, precluding cross-examination concerning all the items in the defendant's record except for his conviction for attempted robbery in the second degree. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion (see, People v Williams, 108 A.D.2d 767; People v McClain, 107 A.D.2d 765). While the prosecutor's statements in his summation with regard to the defendant's postarrest silence may have been improper, any error which occurred must be deemed harmless in light of the trial court's prompt curative instructions, and the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Mayrant, 109 A.D.2d 850; People v Boylan, 98 A.D.2d 779). The defendant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the trial court's instructions on reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence were improper, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Thompson, 107 A.D.2d 772; People v Willis, 107 A.D.2d 830), and, under the circumstances of this case, review in the interest of justice is not warranted. Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.