DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied his right to a fair trial. First, the defendant's contention that the trial court improperly limited his ability to impeach the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. George, 67 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Sutherland, 280 A.D.2d 622; People v. Mercado, 135 A.D.2d 661). In any event, this contention is without merit ( see People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, cert denied 416 U.S. 905; People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198; People v. Savastano, 280 A.D.2d 498; People v. Singh, 262 A.D.2d 431; People v. Coleman, 195 A.D.2d 475; People v. Meade, 198 A.D.2d 307) . In addition, viewing the court's charge as a whole, the instructions regarding credibility adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standard by which to evaluate the testimony of the complainant ( see People v. Brown, 220 A.D.2d 606; People v. Inniss, 192 A.D.2d 553, affd 83 N.Y.2d 653; People v. Sherman, 156 A.D.2d 889).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.