Opinion
November 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that reversal is required because the prosecutor was permitted to ask leading questions of the complainant is without merit. Although the prosecutor began to ask the complainant a question which was arguably leading in nature (see, Fisch, New York Evidence § 331 [Lond 2d ed]), defense counsel's objection interrupted that question and prevented any answer thereto, and the question which was ultimately answered was not leading. We find that the prosecutor's aborted leading question did not prejudice the defendant.
The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive under the circumstances (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.