Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor was properly permitted to present, in rebuttal, a witness whose testimony contradicted the defense witness's testimony concerning the defendant's whereabouts at the time of the robbery (see, People v Cade, 73 N.Y.2d 904, 905). Although the challenged testimony tended to impeach the defense witness's credibility, it was not collateral "since it bore on whether the alibi testimony was contrived" (People v Beavers, 127 A.D.2d 138, 142).
In light of the defendant's prior criminal history, the sentence was not excessive.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.