The lawyer for cybersex defendant Oliver Jovanovic yesterday continued

to hack away at the testimony of the woman who claims the computer nerd

kidnapped and tortured her.

Hammering at apparent inconsistencies, defense lawyer Jack Litman homed

in on the woman's statement to police following the alleged attack on

Nov. 22, 1996.

He got the 22-year-old Barnard College woman to admit the account she

gave to cops and the one she gave in court were slightly different.

Jovanovic has been accused of kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse,

sodomy, sexual abuse and assault, and faces 25 years to life in prison

if convicted.

His accuser testified last week that on the night of the attack - the

couple's first date after six months of correspondence on the Internet -

Jovanovic ordered her to remove her sweater and pants, and then tied her

to a futon bed in his apartment with cloth strips.

He then allegedly poured hot wax on her body, bit her breasts and

sodomized her during a 20-hour attack, she testified.

"Did you tell detectives ... that he tied your legs to the futon ... and

told you to take off your sweater?" Litman asked. "You couldn't take

your pants off while your legs were tied, could you?"

The woman admitted she couldn't remember "being tied up when I had my

clothes on."

"But if that's what I wrote, it must have been," she said.

The lawyer also got the woman to admit she used two different Social

Security numbers on different legal documents, although the woman said

it was only a mistake in memory.

In addition, Litman brought up the apparently strained relationship

between the woman and her father during questioning about her use of

credit cards with her mother's permission - but not with her dad's.

But he failed to get the woman to talk about S&M practices that are

allegedly alluded to in e-mail notes between her and Jovanovic.

Meanwhile, tensions between Litman and acting state Supreme Court

Justice William Wetzel continued to mount.

For the second time, the defense asked for a mistrial in the case during

closed-door talks that are becoming increasingly bitter, a courtroom

source told The Post.

The mistrial is being sought because of the alleged bias of Wetzel,

according to the courtroom source.

The defense also wants the judge to recuse himself from further

proceedings because of the alleged bias, the source said.

The defense, in its arguments to the judge in private session, cited the

judge's use of "derisive, sarcastic and condescending language" toward

Litman, the source said.

The defense also claims the judge has a "clear ... bias ... favoring and

protecting the complaining witness and completely antagonistic" to

Litman, the source said.

Wetzel ordered a hearing on the mistrial application for 8:30 a.m.