Opinion
November 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's assertions on appeal, the court's preclusion of various proffered testimony concerning alleged threats against the defendant made by the complaining witness and/or his companions did not constitute reversible error. To the extent that the defendant preserved these arguments for appeal, the proffered testimony would have been, inter alia, merely cumulative ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Dupigney, 156 A.D.2d 709; People v. Rivera, 101 A.D.2d 981, affd 65 N.Y.2d 661).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Thompson, JJ., concur.