Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that a mistrial was necessary because the prosecutor asked on cross-examination if he had threatened the complaining witness during a recess in her testimony. The prosecutor had a good faith basis for asking the question and the testimony was admissible on the ground that it had "some tendency to prove a consciousness of guilt" ( People v. Griffin, 126 A.D.2d 743, 744; People v. Whaley, 144 A.D.2d 510; People v. King, 175 A.D.2d 266).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Broadus, 129 A.D.2d 997; see also, People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837) or without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.