DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court providently exercised its discretion in permitting cross examination as to his prior conviction for possession of marihuana since the prior conviction demonstrated the defendant's willingness to place his interest above that of society ( see, People v. Dwyer, 243 A.D.2d 645; People v. Beverly, 220 A.D.2d 881; People v. Brownlee, 193 A.D.2d 752).
The court did not err in precluding the admission of those portions of the victim's hospital record in which she purportedly stated the identity of the person who had inflicted her injuries. Such hearsay statements were inadmissible as they were not relevant to diagnosis or treatment ( see, People v. Pette, 251 A.D.2d 601; People v. Townsley, 240 A.D.2d 955; People v. Harris, 132 A.D.2d 940, 941).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Carroll, 181 A.D.2d 904), or without merit.