Opinion
March 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the refusal of the trial court to permit the victim to be cross-examined by the defense concerning her relationships with various male friends was not erroneous. Such testimony is not admissible under any exception to CPL 60.42, and the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by precluding the cross-examination (see, People v. Mandel, 48 N.Y.2d 952, cert denied 446 U.S. 949).
Further, the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that the interpreter was competent, and the defendant failed to make a record of any serious translation problems (see, People v. Gordillo, 191 A.D.2d 455; see also, People v Frazier, 159 A.D.2d 278).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; see also, People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 1050). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.