Once again, the Appellate Division's application of the procedural bar is appropriate in this case. See People v Batista, 771 N.Y.S.2d 662, 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004); People v Villanueva, 734 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001); People v Brito, 578 N.Y.S.2d 607, 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992); People v Kim, 567 N.Y.S.2d 119, 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (applying contemporaneous objection rule to Sandoval hearings). Furthermore, for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division, the trial court's Sandoval ruling was not erroneous under state law.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the convictions of criminal sexual act in the first degree and rape in the first degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) is preserved for appellate review ( cf. People v. Villanueva, 289 A.D.2d 425, 425, 734 N.Y.S.2d 906;People v. Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666, 666, 578 N.Y.S.2d 607,). However, the claim is without merit.

The defendant's contention that the prosecution was precluded by People v Sandoval ( 34 NY2d 371, 375) from inquiring into his prior convictions is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Jones, 41 AD3d 507, 508; People v Brito, 179 AD2d 666), and, in any event, is without merit. The trial court did not err in granting the People's application to modify its Sandoval ruling to permit the prosecutor to inquire, on cross-examination, into the facts of a prior youthful offender adjudication for drug sales since, on direct examination, the defendant opened the door to such questioning on cross-examination ( see People v Brown, 11 AD3d 474, 475; People v Sims, 245 AD2d 316; People v Johnson, 203 AD2d 588).

The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court improperly allowed the prosecution to cross-examine him regarding a marijuana conviction and prior bad acts which occurred on May 26, 2002 ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Batista, 4 AD3d 222; People v. Villanueva, 289 AD2d 425; People v. Brito, 179 AD2d 666; People v. Kim, 170 AD2d 707). In any event, his contention is without merit, as his prior conviction and prior bad acts were probative on the issue of the defendant's credibility and his willingness to place his own interests before the interests of society ( see People v. Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 468; People v. Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 375; People v. Dwyer, 243 AD2d 645; People v. Brown, 262 AD2d 328).

We further reject the defendant's claim that the subsequent lineup was faulty because the other individuals did not resemble him. There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be accompanied by individuals nearly identical in physical appearance ( see, People v. Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666) and the record reveals that the lineup stand-ins were reasonably similar in appearance to the defendant. The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, lacking in merit, or do not warrant reversal.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The appellant's argument that the Family Court's Sandoval ruling ( see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) violated his right against self-incrimination is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Hilaire, 211 A.D.2d 642; People v. Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666). The appellant's remaining contention does not require reversal.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of an uncharged crime (see, CPL 470.05; People v Gomez, 67 N.Y.2d 843; People v Williams, 187 A.D.2d 547; People v Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666). In any event, the trial court did not err in allowing the victim to testify that he observed the defendant beating another man across the street immediately prior to the instant offense.

The defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the delay in the People's disclosure of two police officers' memobooks, the contents of which were consistent with the police reports already in the defendant's possession at the commencement of trial ( see, People v Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the lineup and the photographic arrays were not unduly suggestive ( see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). There is no requirement that the defendant must be surrounded by persons nearly identical to him in appearance ( see, People v Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666). Moreover, the evidence of the defendant's prior uncharged crime in which he robbed another person immediately prior to attempting to rob the victim was properly admitted since it was "inextricably interwoven" with the events which led up to the defendant's arrest, and it was necessary to complete the narrative of the crime ( see, People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364; see also, People v Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932).

We further reject the defendant's contention that he was unduly prejudiced by the trial court's Sandoval ruling because of the similarity between his prior attempted assault conviction and the charge of assault in the instant case. We note that as the defendant failed to advance this claim at the Sandoval hearing, his present contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666). In any event, the court's ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Kyser, 147 A.D.2d 590; People v Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882).

We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress the identification evidence. The hearing court found that the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive ( see generally, People v. Stephens, 143 A.D.2d 692; People v. Diaz, 138 A.D.2d 728; People v. Gairy, 116 A.D.2d 733), and it is well settled that there is no requirement that the defendant be surrounded by individuals whose physical characteristics are nearly identical to his ( see, People vChipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v Baptiste, 201 A.D.2d 659; People v. Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666). Accordingly, we discern no basis in the record for disturbing the hearing court's determination. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.