PEOPLE v. LYNCH (1998)

 Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400;  People v. Trait, 139 A.D.2d 937, 938, 527 N.Y.S.2d 920, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 867, 532 N.Y.S.2d 517, 528 N.E.2d 908), nor was he deprived of his right to be present at all material stages of trial by County Court's in camera inspection of complainant's mental health records (see generally, People v. Rodriguez, 85 N.Y.2d 586, 590-591, 627 N.Y.S.2d 292, 650 N.E.2d 1293;  see also, People v. Arnold, 177 A.D.2d 633, 634, 576 N.Y.S.2d 339, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 853, 580 N.Y.S.2d 724, 588 N.E.2d 759).   Additionally, the court's Sandoval ruling was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709, 712, 622 N.Y.S.2d 223, 646 N.E.2d 444;  People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 274, 567 N.Y.S.2d 384, 568 N.E.2d 1189).

 We reject defendant's contention that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the 11-year-old complainant to give sworn testimony (see, People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 46, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848, 359 N.E.2d 358).  The colloquy between complainant and the court was sufficient to permit the court to determine that complainant understood the nature of an oath.   The contention of defendant that the court erred in prohibiting him from introducing extrinsic evidence of complainant's prior sexual abuse has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ).  In any event, the record fails to support that contention.

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: