DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court failed to properly instruct the jurors that they need not surrender their conscientiously-held beliefs when it gave a supplemental instruction after the jury initially returned a defective verdict. That contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Kendrick, 256 A.D.2d 420; People v. Penafiel, 247 A.D.2d 411) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v. Jolly, 282 A.D.2d 474 [decided herewith]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in not permitting the defendant's alibi witness to testify (see, CPL 250.20; People v. Aviles, 234 A.D.2d 466). Further, to the extent that the witness's proposed testimony would not involve an alibi, the Supreme Court properly excluded it because it was not probative of any material fact (see, People v. Aska, 91 N.Y.2d 979). The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application to recall a prosecution witness to question her regarding collateral matters (see, People v. Aska, supra; People v. Chichester, 248 A.D.2d 629; People v. Hooker, 245 A.D.2d 528).
The Supreme Court properly imposed a determinate sentence of imprisonment upon each of the defendant's convictions of robbery in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 70.06[b]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal.