Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At a pretrial Sandoval hearing (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) the trial court ruled that if the defendant chose to testify, the People would be permitted to cross-examine him regarding, in relevant part, the underlying facts of a pending indictment in Illinois, which facts related to the defendant's credibility as a witness. Since the defendant did not challenge the Sandoval ruling on the ground that it violated his right against self-incrimination, that issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292, n 3; cf., People v Betts, 70 N.Y.2d 289). In any event, the prosecutor asked only one question concerning the underlying facts of the Illinois indictment, and he did not pursue the defendant's denial. Accordingly, any error was harmless (see, People v Shields, 46 N.Y.2d 764).
The defendant's further claim that the trial court erred in failing to deliver a justification instruction with regard to the charge of assault in the second degree is similarly unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, there was no reasonable interpretation of the evidence which could lead the jury to conclude that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary (see, People v Reynoso, 73 N.Y.2d 816, 818; People v Vasquez, 161 A.D.2d 678; People v Odinga, 143 A.D.2d 202, 203-205).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953), or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.