Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's conviction arises out of his violation of an order of protection. During the complainant's testimony, she volunteered that she had testified falsely in a prior criminal proceeding, in accordance with instructions provided to her by the defendant's counsel. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's striking of that testimony and its prompt curative instructions operated to vitiate any prejudice that might have inured from the statements ( see, People v. Johnson, 219 A.D.2d 809; People v. Carter, 197 A.D.2d 698; People v. Windley, 181 A.D.2d 703; People v. Soto, 133 A.D.2d 787; People v. Adeline, 122 A.D.2d 61). There is no significant probability that the volunteered statements materially influenced the jury to his prejudice, or distracted the jury from the principal issues.
In addition, the defendant's right to confront a witness against him was not violated by the court's refusal to permit him to call as a witness an attorney who had represented the complainant in the prior criminal proceeding. It is "well established that the party who is cross-examining a witness cannot introduce extrinsic documentary evidence or call other witnesses to contradict a witness'[s] answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching that witness'[s] credibility" ( People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 288-289; see also, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; Matter of Sheldon G., 234 A.D.2d 459; People v. Diaz, 209 A.D.2d 632).
Pizzuto, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.