Opinion
December 28, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request to recall the complainant for cross-examination concerning statements made at a hearing which was aborted upon the defendant's insistence, because he questioned the reliability of the interpreter ( see, People v. Hults, 76 N.Y.2d 190, 198; People v. Perez, 135 A.D.2d 665; People v. Perez, 128 Misc.2d 31).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit ( see, People v. Ladd, 89 N.Y.2d 893; People v. Spero, 172 A.D.2d 782; People v. York, 133 A.D.2d 130).
Copertino, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.