Judgment affirmed.
The court did not err in denying defendant's request to allow the jury to view the defendant's car. The defendant could not satisfy the threshold prerequisite that such a viewing would be helpful in the determination of a "material factual issue" (CPL 270.50; People v McCurdy, 86 A.D.2d 493). Therefore, no abuse of discretion occurred.
Proof of the commission of crimes which indicates a voluntary willingness or disposition of a defendant to place the advancement of his own self-interest above the mores or interests of society may be relevant to suggest his readiness to do so again on the witness stand (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not commit reversible error in its Sandoval ruling (People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142).
Since defendant failed to object to the People's use of a document during cross-examination to refresh his recollection, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Jenkins, 47 N.Y.2d 722; People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v Smith, 108 A.D.2d 763). In any event, there is no merit to defendant's contention that the People made use of extrinsic evidence to support a collateral matter where, as here, the document in question was used solely to refresh defendant's recollection during cross-examination. Further, it is well settled that the nature and extent of cross-examination is subject to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241). No abuse of discretion occurred in the instant case. Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.