Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the defense counsel's cross-examination of the complainant as to prior bad acts because counsel failed to establish a good-faith basis for this inquiry ( see People v Olibencia, 45 AD3d 607; People v Dellarocco, 115 AD2d 904, 905; cf. People v Jones, 193 AD2d 696, 697).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.