ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
As the People correctly concede, the trial court improperly denied the defendant's right to fully cross-examine the victim when it prevented questions about a prior inconsistent statement to the effect that she did not believe that the defendant was armed. However, forcible compulsion does not require a finding that a defendant threatened his victim with a weapon. Rather, any application of physical force is sufficient to support such a finding (see Penal Law § 130.00; People v. Ferrer, 209 A.D.2d 714; People v. Thompson, 158 A.D.2d 563; People v. Randall, 86 A.D.2d 918), as are either verbal or implied threats of physical injury (see Penal Law § 130.00; People v. Williams, 81 N.Y.2d 303; People v. Samuel, 239 A.D.2d 527; People v. Miller, 226 A.D.2d 833; People v. McKenzie, 180 A.D.2d 827; People v. Smolen, 166 A.D.2d 248). Since there was evidence that the defendant used physical force against the victim and threatened to break her neck, while in a position to do so, any error in precluding the testimony as to whether the victim believed that the defendant was armed is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18; Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review.
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ., concur.