Viewing the evidence most favorably to the People, and bearing in mind that credibility is for the trier of facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
Before permitting the child victim to testify via closed-circuit television, the court strictly complied with all the requirements of CPL article 65 (see, People v. Cintron, 75 N.Y.2d 249, 263-266).
The court's Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into sale and sale-related possession of drugs, was appropriate (see, People v Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882), and we find nothing improper about the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant as to this, or any other, area.
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review any of them in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find each of them without merit, because the child's capacity to be sworn was properly determined (see, People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 39-40), the expert testimony on child sex abuse syndrome was properly limited to a general explanation of victims' untimely disclosures (see, People v Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 292-294), and the prosecutor's summation was based upon evidence in the record.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.