Opinion
March 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his cross examination of the complainant was improperly curtailed is without merit. Although prior alleged sexual assault complaints do not fall within the proscriptive scope of CPL 60.42, it is not an improvident exercise of discretion for a trial court to restrict cross-examination on that topic, especially where, as here, the defendant provided no basis for his allegation that the prior complaints were false (see, People v. Lippert, 138 A.D.2d 770; see also, People v. Mandel, 48 N.Y.2d 952; People v. Passenger, 175 A.D.2d 944; People v. Hamel, 174 A.D.2d 837). Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not prohibited from cross-examining the complainant regarding the facts underlying her conviction of sexual abuse.
Furthermore, we find that the court correctly imposed consecutive sentences for the defendant's convictions of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The defendant committed separate and distinct sexual acts so that the imposition of consecutive sentences was wholly appropriate (see, People v. Rivera, 186 A.D.2d 594; see also, People v. Cropper, 202 A.D.2d 603; People v. Thomas, 166 A.D.2d 624).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.