Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court properly precluded cross-examination of the complaining witness about her sexual history as the theory upon which the defendant sought to admit the evidence was far too speculative (see, CPL 60.42; People v Perryman, 178 A.D.2d 916; People v Westfall, 95 A.D.2d 581, 585).
We also reject the defendant's argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.