Opinion
March 25, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that the prosecutor could cross-examine him with respect to three prior convictions in the event that he elected to testify (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The defendant's extensive criminal record, which included eight prior convictions for theft-related offenses, demonstrated his willingness to place his own interests ahead of the interests of society, thereby directly impacting upon the issue of his credibility (see, People v Sandoval, supra; People v Reynolds, 171 A.D.2d 707; People v Branch, 155 A.D.2d 475). Moreover, the similarity between the prior crimes and the crimes charged did not require their preclusion, as a defendant who specializes in one particular type of crime is not shielded from cross-examination thereon (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Branch, supra; People v Kyser, 147 A.D.2d 590). Brown, J.P., Sullivan, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.