Opinion
January 31, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims regarding the propriety of the jury charge are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467) or devoid of merit (see, People v. Agosto, 73 N.Y.2d 963; People v. Rudelt, 6 A.D.2d 640). In addition, while the defendant correctly posits that he had a right to cross-examine the complainant with respect to specific immoral, vicious, or criminal acts bearing on credibility, "the inquiry must have some tendency to show moral turpitude to be relevant on the credibility issue" (Badr v. Hogan, 75 N.Y.2d 629, 634). Such is not the case here where the acts targeted by the defendant's line of inquiry cannot be characterized as base, vile, or depraved, and therefore are not indicative of moral turpitude on the part of the complainant (see, Black's Law Dictionary 1008-1009 [6th ed 1990]).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.