Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the cross-examination of one of his witnesses is largely unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Hobbs, 1 AD3d 610; People v. Hunte, 276 AD2d 717; People v. Green, 272 AD2d 341). In any event, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the allegedly improper conduct ( see People v. Hunte, supra; People v. Green, supra).
The defendant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prejudice when one of the prosecutors testified in rebuttal, solely to authenticate an audiotape of a conversation with a defense witness ( see People v. Paperno, 54 NY2d 294; People v. Cannady, 243 AD2d 642; People v. Strawder, 106 AD2d 672; People v. Lester, 99 AD2d 611).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce the audiotape in rebuttal is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Bailey, 12 AD3d 377, lv denied 4 NY3d 741; People v. Maldonado, 212 AD2d 808). In any event, the audiotape was properly admitted since it contradicted the testimony of the defense witness regarding the issue of self-defense. Although the audiotape tended to impeach the credibility of the witness, it was not collateral, since it related to a material issue in the case ( see People v. Wise, 46 NY2d 321; People v. Rosario, 298 AD2d 244; People v. Wilson, 297 AD2d 298; People v. Green, 197 AD2d 704).