Opinion
December 19, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the defendant from questioning a defense witness on redirect examination concerning her arrest during a recess in the trial. The defendant contends that such questioning might have revealed that the witness was intimidated into repudiating a prior written statement. However, the witness had already repudiated the statement in question on cross-examination prior to her arrest. In addition, defense counsel had stated in colloquy prior to the witness's direct testimony that the witness's statement was concededly untrue and was not part of the defense. Under these circumstances, testimony about the arrest would not have explained or clarified matters put in issue by cross-examination, but would have confused and misled the jury (see, People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451-452; People v Kuss, 122 A.D.2d 599).
During cross-examination of the defendant, the prosecutor sought to inquire into certain prior convictions which had not been the subject of the defendant's original Sandoval application. Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the People were not obligated to disclose the intention to use those convictions at the time of the Sandoval hearing (see, People v Matthews, 68 N.Y.2d 118, 121-123; People v Griffin, 131 A.D.2d 779, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 955). We find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in precluding inquiry into one offense as too remote but permitting inquiry into the defendant's theft convictions, which have "a very material relevance, whenever committed" (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377; People v Ortero, 75 A.D.2d 168, 174-177).
We find that the defendant failed to preserve his claims of error with respect to certain remarks made by the prosecutor in his summation. The defendant failed to object to most of the remarks and did not express dissatisfaction with the court's curative instructions when objections were made and sustained (see, CPL 470.05; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). In any event, even if some of the remarks were improper, they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Balletta, JJ., concur.