Opinion
May 14, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J., Leahy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defense counsel's request for a continuance in order that she might subpoena one of the arresting officers, as she failed to establish that the officer's testimony would be anything other than cumulative (see, People v. Pally, 131 A.D.2d 889; People v. Wood, 129 A.D.2d 598; People v. Daniels, 128 A.D.2d 632).
The defendant's contention with respect to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636), and, in any event, is without merit. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.