Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
To the extent the defendant contends that the court's restriction of his cross-examination of the complainant precluded him from presenting a "frame-up" defense, the contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1002; CPL 470.05). While the court did err in precluding cross-examination of the complainant regarding certain prior misconduct and criminal acts which were relevant to his general credibility, that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v Batista, 113 AD2d 890; People v Allen, 67 AD2d 558, affd 50 NY2d 898).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).