PEOPLE v. BROCK (1997)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Since the defendant did not timely object to the complainant's assertion of her Fifth Amendment rights, his present contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2];  see also, People v. Perry, 218 A.D.2d 818, 630 N.Y.S.2d 795;  People v. Irizarry, 214 A.D.2d 622, 625 N.Y.S.2d 92;  People v. Sims, 209 A.D.2d 192, 618 N.Y.S.2d 283;  People v. Kaufman, 156 A.D.2d 718, 549 N.Y.S.2d 471).   In any event, the defendant was permitted to establish that the complainant had prior criminal convictions.   Further, the disposition of the cases about which she refused to answer questions had no direct bearing on the facts surrounding the crime with which the defendant was charged.   These were, therefore, collateral matters, and the refusal of the witness to testify with respect thereto was not a denial of the defendant's right to confront the witness (see, People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22, 499 N.Y.S.2d 638, 490 N.E.2d 505;  People v. Perry, supra;  People v. Rodriguez, 177 A.D.2d 664, 577 N.Y.S.2d 71;  People v. Kaufman, supra).   The limited extent to which the complainant was allowed to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination did not unfairly undermine the defendant's right to confrontation (see, People v. Chin, supra;  People v. Irizarry, supra;  People v. Sims, supra;  People v. Cole, 196 A.D.2d 634, 601 N.Y.S.2d 352;  People v. Dancy, 176 A.D.2d 597, 575 N.Y.S.2d 41).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is meritless.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.