Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant's request for a continuance to produce the police officer who issued a report on the accident. The appellant could only speculate as to what his testimony might be and, in any event, the police officer was not a witness to the accident (see, Michaels v Dalimonte, 121 A.D.2d 370).
The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal. Bracken, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.