Opinion
April 10, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On the afternoon of September 28, 1990, the defendant attacked two men who had been involved in an altercation with his son earlier that day, stabbing each victim several times. On appeal, the defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the complaining witnesses were improperly permitted to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to several questions concerning whether they had previously pleaded guilty to crimes. However, since the defendant never objected to the complainants' assertion of their Fifth Amendment rights, his present contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Sims, 209 A.D.2d 192; People v Murphy, 176 A.D.2d 899). In any event, the defendant was permitted to establish that both complainants had prior criminal convictions, and the disposition of the cases about which they refused to answer questions had no direct bearing upon the present case. Accordingly, the limited extent to which the complainants were allowed to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination did not unfairly undermine the defendant's right to confrontation (see, People v Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22; People v Sims, supra; People v Cole, 196 A.D.2d 634; People v Dancy, 176 A.D.2d 597).
We find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by determining that the Spanish interpreter was competent (see, People v Rivera, 199 A.D.2d 288; see also, People v Rolston, 109 A.D.2d 854).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.