Defendant's claim that the trial court improperly interfered with his cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses is without merit. With the exception of two instances in which defense counsel was precluded from making offers of proof for matters it intended to explore, defendant failed to preserve his claims by specific and timely objection (People v. Rosen, 185 A.D.2d 128, lv granted 80 N.Y.2d 909). To the extent that the claims are preserved, the court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination on the issue of whether the officers involved in defendant's arrest had gone to other locations and made other arrests on the day defendant was arrested or whether vials of crack were found near defendant since these matters were both collateral and speculative in nature. (See, People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 56.)
In view of defendant's prior record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.